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

The default FS type

From: Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU>
Date: 2005-04-05 22:18:19 CEST

In IRC, we have a little disagreement over how the default FS type
should be determined in 1.2. Here are our options:

  (1) Trunk status quo: The default is FSFS. If svn is built with
      --enable-dso and FSFS is not installed, "svnadmin create" will
      fail unless --fs-type=bdb is specified.

  (2) No default. You must specify an FS type when creating a
      repository.

  (3) The default is determined at runtime; FSFS is preferred, but if
      svn is built with --enable-dso and FSFS is not installed, BDB is
      the default. (This is similar to how 1.1 determines the
      default, with the preference switched from BDB to FSFS.
      Although 1.1 makes the decision depending on whether BDB was
      built, not whether it is installed.) Documentation needs to be
      careful not to write in stone what the default is.

Since we always build FSFS, there is some disagreement about whether
it should always be installed. I think FSFS should be considered part
of the Subversion core (a "mandatory to implement" mechanism, in IETF
terminology), since it has no dependencies; breser believes that it's
important to be able to not install mechanisms which one doesn't plan
to use.

Here are the preferences from IRC:

  ghudson: (1) (3 better than 2, if it comes to that)
  cmpilato: (1) or (2)
  breser: (2) or (3)
  kfogel: (1) or (3)
  dlr: (1) (assuming the failure is graceful)
  fitz: (1)

No one brought up the idea of a veto on any of the options, so we can
go by the majority preference. The IRC poll suggests (1) is the most
popular; this is your chance to speak up if you're not represented
there.

(The astute reader may note that I didn't object to r10299, which made
FSFS the default back end in 1.1 if BDB is not built. I did feel kind
of ooky about that at the time, but couldn't articulate my reasons.
Now I know: in my opinion, the overriding concern here is our ability
to confidently document what the default is. If you really don't want
to install libsvn_fs_fsfs, that's okay, but having "svnadmin create"
fail by default in that scenario is the right answer.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 6 18:54:46 2005

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