Re: Should 'svnadmin dump --deltas' write svndiff1 diffs? (was Re: svn commit: r18363)
Won't svndiff1 format dumpfiles be significantly smaller than
svndiff0? In that case the option is definitely worth having, though
I'm not sure what the default should be.
On 2/8/06, Daniel Berlin <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 08:47 -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> > >>If so, we probably should add a --no-svndiff1 option to dump as well.
> > >
> > > No, I think that's the wrong way round - we don't want people using
> > > revision-based 'dump --deltas' for backup purposes to suddenly find that
> > > they're using a format that can only be read by svnadmin 1.4.x.
> > >
> > > Better would be either to always write svndiff0 (people can pipe it
> > > through gzip if they want, and may already be doing so), or perhaps to
> > > provide a '--svndiff1' option to write svndiff1 deltas. We could even
> > > look at inferring a default from the filesystem version, though I think
> > > we might need both --svndiff1 and --svndiff0 options to override it in
> > > that case.
> > I agree. The dumpfile format should continue to use the most widely
> > handled formats until the format itself *needs* to be bump in order to
> > carry information that the existing format cannot carry. A switch from
> > svndiff0 to svndiff1 in the dumpfile format is not necessary, and
> > therefore should not not occur at all. If we want to provide a
> > --svndiff1 option to 'svnadmin dump', that's fine with me -- at least
> > folks will have to work a little harder to hurt themselves.
> I have absolutely no strong feelings on the issue because we have made
> incompatible changes to the dump format before, with no backwards
> compatibility option (though maybe this occurred before 1.0).
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Wed Feb 8 16:20:35 2006
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev