"Max Bowsher" <maxb@ukf.net> writes:
> I think that we ought to have a svn_fs_type() API anyway, because it
> has a legitimate use: Allowing svnadmin, or similar GUI programs, to
> inform the user of the type of a repository without resorting to
> manually peeking into it to see. After all, since bdb and fsfs
> repositories have to be handled by an administrator in different ways
> in some cases, there ought to be an official way to tell them apart.
>
> Now, building on the above premise that a svn_fs_type() is worthwhile
> in its own right, I don't think an additional feature test API is
> worthwhile, because this isn't a mechanism that needs to be
> extensible. We should preserve libsvn_repos's independence from the
> fs-type in every aspect except where compatibility forces us to give
> in. In this case, the issue is that part of the BDB-specific locking
> arrangements were engineered into libsvn_repos, not libsvn_fs. We have
> learnt from our mistake, and will not repeat it, so we can state with
> certainty that locks/db.lock will only ever be required for the bdb
> fs-type - fsfs, and *all future fs-types yet to be invented* will not
> use locks/db.lock. Come 2.0, the entire issue will go away entirely,
> when the compatibility break allows us to force the remaining
> BDB-specific locking down into the bdb fs module, where it belongs.
Okay, I'll buy that argument.
Max, would you like me to implement this, or are you on it?
-Karl
--
www.collab.net <> CollabNet | Distributed Development On Demand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Aug 29 19:04:46 2005