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

Re: fsfs bug in commit timestamps?

From: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev_at_farside.org.uk>
Date: 2006-01-13 13:31:35 CET

On Tue, Jan 10, 2006 at 02:52:19PM -0800, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On 1/10/06, Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@red-bean.com> wrote:
> > Looks pretty simple. There's one 'block' of code that fsfs takes out
> > an exclusive lock for... the same block which actually moves the
> > revision file into place. My guess is that's where svn:date should
> > also be set. That's where BDB is doing it, at least (in the bdb txn).
> Yeah, that's what I came up with. Here's a patch that looks like it
> should fix it. Seems to work, haven't done any really heavy duty
> testing on it, so if someone with a little more fsfs background could
> take a look I'd appreciate it.
> -garrett
> Reset svn:date before finalizing commits in fsfs so we can be sure that
> the svn:date revprops remain ordered.

Ah, I had wondered where FSFS was updating the date. Yes, that patch
looks sane to me as well. (I realise you've now committed it).

Still, changing the svn:date property from 'transaction creation date' to
'transaction commit date' doesn't change much, does it, apart from the
cosmetic issue of preventing time from going backwards for long-running
transactions? We don't actually _rely_ on svn:date being a monotonically
increasing sequence anywhere, do we?


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jan 13 13:52:22 2006

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.