[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Locking: regarding fsfs

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_red-bean.com>
Date: 2004-11-20 20:19:09 CET

On Nov 20, 2004, at 12:04 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:

> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>> Okay, after a couple of weeks, I think we've hammered out a
>> reasonable implementation of locks in BDB. Huge thanks to striker
>> and cmpilato (and brane, for preventing us from going down a bad
>> road!)
>> The locking branch compiles now, and you can play with the BDB
>> repository locks using the three new 'svnadmin' commands. I'm gonna
>> start writing some new fs-tests (the C tests) to check that locks are
>> being properly enforced during write operations, both on-the-fly and
>> at final commit time. The fsfs implementation of locks will be able
>> to use the same tests too.
> We should really break down fs-tests into general, BDB-specific and
> FSFS-specific tests, then make it understand the --fs-type option.
> Right now I believe we still test BDB more rigorously than FSFS in the
> unit tests.

That would directly contradict the instructions in
subversion/tests/README. That doc seems to be talking about testing
public APIs, and *not* writing tests for implementation details. Is
that doc just out-of-date? Do we have any existing fs-tests that are
BDB-specific or FSFS-specific? I don't think we do... I think it's all
public APIs. Has FSFS never been run through fs-tests.c? It should

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Nov 20 20:20:41 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.