C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>For my own part, I'm backing out of this change altogether. Once I
>started coding it, I realized some things that make this whole idea a
>major turn-off:
>
> - I can't think of a good way to guarantee atomicity across the
> upgrades of the filesystem and the repository. And what in the
> world do we do if a repository claims a 1.1 format number but the
> filesystem has a 1.2 one?
>
>
Why do you need to upgrade the repository format? I thought the
repository format was for the basic structure of the repository, i.e.
that it has a hooks dir, a db dir, etc, and that the fs format/revision
was for the stuff inside the db dir. Since the locking changes are all
inside the db dir, and the repository is unchanged except for a few
extra hook templates which don't really have to be added by an upgrade,
IMHO. What am I missing?
> - The number of places in which code would need to either check version
> numbers before allowing a piece of functionality, or trap and
> specially handle an SVN_ERR_FEATURE_NOT_IMPLEMENTED error, is
> much larger than I expected.
>
>
Is the number still very large if only the fs format/revision is changed?
/Tobias
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Mar 30 20:52:14 2005