"Max Bowsher" <maxb@ukf.net> writes:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > "Max Bowsher" <maxb@ukf.net> writes:
> >
> >> Do new repositories start out at format 3 or 4?
> > My vote is for "4".
>
> Ditto.
>
> >> Why not do the table creation at "svnadmin upgrade" time?
> > Yeah, I was originally against this (fearing a suggestion of
> > 'svn_fs_go_make_the_locking_tables()'). But the more I think about
> > this, the more I realize that we shouldn't be tying FS functionality
> > to repos version numbers. A Subversion filesystem is a wholly
> > independent on-disk structure that doesn't need a repository wrapper
> > at all.
> > So I think we need svn_repos_upgrade(), which calls another new
> > svn_fs_upgrade(). svn_fs_upgrade() would bump the FS version number,
> > and create the locking tables (and enable locking functionality by
> > virtue of bumping the FS version number).
>
> Sounds good to me.
Question: How much do we care about repository sanity during this
upgrade? I started to code these new APIs, but couldn't decide if I
needed to reproduce the whole 'exclusive lock' code ala
svn_repos_recover2(), and, if so, how to deal with the same scenario
down in the svn_fs libraries (which, in theory, could be upgraded
independently of the svn_repos wrapper).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 29 01:39:39 2005