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

Re: Comments on Issue #525 and Issue #908:Optional or compressed text base storage

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_google.com>
Date: 2006-08-07 18:58:37 CEST

"martin budden" <mjbudden@gmail.com> writes:
> I'd like to state that I'd really like to see the storage of text bases made
> optional. In particular I'd like to see the following three user-configurable
> options offered:
> a) text bases as they are (ie no change)
> b) no text bases
> c) no text bases, but hash of the file stored in .svn directory - this would
> allow you to see that a file has been changed, although you wouldn't be able to
> do diffs.

Note that we store a hash of the text-base already (see the
.svn/entries file). It is a way to do corruption checks.

For text-base-less working copies, we'd want to store a hash of the
working file too. This gets tricky, because if someone changes the
svn:keywords or svn:eol-style property, the working file can change
without it being "modified" in the sense that we usually mean by that
word. Not an impossible problem, just a subtlety to watch out for.

There is no reason to do (b) but not (c). If we allow text-base-less
working copies, we should unconditionally keep a working file checksum
and use it to detect when the file has been modified.

Totally agree that solving #525 would be a Good Thing, by the way! :-)


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Aug 7 18:59:15 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.