On 1/13/06, Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev@farside.org.uk> wrote:
> 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?
Other people have answered the "We don't actually rely on that, do
we?" part, but as far as the "transaction creation date" ->
"transaction commit date" part, it's really supposed to be "commit
date", the "creation date" part was only put in as a convenience, so
that you can use it to tell if an uncommitted transaction is really
old, or if it's only been there for a few minutes. AFAIK anyway.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jan 13 19:03:14 2006