On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 00:27:19 -0500, Greg Hudson <ghudson@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 22:20, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> > Otherwise it seems like we can never bump a repository or working copy
> > format in 1.x, which seems kind of extreme to me.
>
> I think the language is pretty clear that we're allowed to bump the
> repository format during a 1.x series, but that doesn't mean it's a good
> idea.
>
> We know that forcing a dump and load for a downgrade will cause pain in
> some number of situations, including some situations where people never
> even considered using locking. Unless we think it's really bad if a
> lock is circumvented because someone accessed the repository with 1.1
> server code, I think we should leave the version alone.
Well, yes, I think it is bad that people can use different binaries
against the repository and circumvent the locks.
With respect to downgrading the repository: I don't think the other
tables change their layout (are they allowed to?), meaning that an
upgrade will consist of:
- <create new tables>
- echo 4 > format
Then can't we provide a downgrade script to do the reverse? No
dump/load will be necessary, just as we promised. (This should make it
into the faq even before it is implemented, I guess.)
bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Nov 20 11:09:27 2004