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

Re: Another working copy library

From: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-svn-dev_at_farside.org.uk>
Date: 2007-01-17 13:26:28 CET

On Tue, Jan 16, 2007 at 11:36:58PM -0800, David Anderson wrote:
> [good stuff]

* I don't think we should try providing two libsvn_wc implementations.
  Either libsvn_wc_sqlite can implement all the public svn_wc functions
  or it can't. If the former is true, we should just replace the
  implementation. If the latter, I don't see how we can make this usable
  without declaring Subversion 2.0 (in which case, see the former).

* You mention that we aren't seeing any movement on optional textbases
  due to the state of libsvn_wc. From what I understand, it's not just
  the state of the implementation, but the assumptions by the _users_
  of libsvn_wc as to how the implementation works. I understood that
  the next step in fixing those problems should be to remove some of
  those assumptions from the current users. That's still true even if
  you replace libsvn_wc.

* I like the design of using a single (SQLite) database in the root of
  the working copy. I agree that we'd need a severability operation for
  those people who need to use it, but that we can make that explicit.
  From what I recall, that was the same conclusion some of us reached
  at the Summit in October (though I can't remember who was involved in
  the conversation).

* I think the 'svn edit' mode of operation shows some promise, but I
  think we should put off implementation until we have the current mode
  working well. We should take it into account in the design though.

I think that the next steps should be to write down the problems we're
trying to solve (and those we aren't) and come up with a concrete design
that we can validate against those requirements. I'd also like to know:

 - how we're going to solve the assumptions made by users of libsvn_wc
   in our codebase (I don't think we need to worry about assumptions
   made by other users). For example, do we introduce operations to
   encapsulate access to the text-base files.

 - what we can learn from how other implementations work. SVK has its
   own working copy storage, for example.

Finally: I'd love to help. I'm not sure how much time I'll have though.


  • application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Wed Jan 17 13:26:45 2007

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