Re: Misrepresentation of BerkeleyDB FS module as "base"

"Max Bowsher" <maxb@ukf.net> writes:

> >>> [...snip ...]
> >>> The following repository back-end (FS) modules are available:
> >>>
> >>> * fs_base : Module for working with a Berkeley DB repository.
> >>> * fs_fs : Module for working with a plain file (FSFS) repository.
> >>
> >> Shouldn't these match the name svnadmin --fs-type expects?
> >
> > Yes, please.
>
> No, thankyou.
>
> /me stops being flippant.
>
> Seriously, those are module names, and fs_base is correct.
>
> If you want to try and work the fs types provided by each module into
> the list, great! But don't pretend that fs types and module names are
> the same.

Yes, yes! You're totally right. Keep the module names, but maybe do
a little sum'in-sum'in like this:

   * fs_base : Module for working with a Berkeley DB (bdb) repository.
   * fs_fs : Module for working with a plain file (fsfs) repository.

But then, on second (actually, third) thought, I actually don't care
to see the --fs-type-compliant names at all. Just looks ugly.

-- C-Mike (more noise, less talk)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Apr 1 00:55:34 2005