On 5/20/07, David Summers <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 May 2007, Mark Phippard wrote:
> > DAV write-through proxy
> > This has the potential to be a killer feature, but it is another one
> > that is not heavily documented. There is a notes file, but it looks
> > like it pre-dates the implementation in some of the details. This one
> > looks fairly easy to turn on but could benefit from some more
> > explanation about what it wants to accomplish with some real-world
> > implementation scenarios. For example, it seems fairly important that
> > the read-only "slaves" are updated after a commit. Presumably svnsync
> > would be a good candidate for doing this. An example hook-based
> > implementation would be useful. Also, some discussion on the
> > ramifications would be useful. What if I do a commit, followed by an
> > update and my mirror has not been updated yet? Likewise, what if
> > another user does a commit, and then I do a commit by mirror has not
> > been updated yet. Will that effect me?
> I have been using Subversion 1.4.2 on a Win2K3R2 master server with
> Subversion 1.5 r???? (I forget, updated last sometime in January)
> pre-release on a Linux Redhat 4 server since mid-December.
I was hoping you would reply since AFAIK, you are one of the few/only
that have been using it in advance of the release.
> I have a post-commit script that does svnsync from the master to the
> server and do web-dav proyxing (is that the correct term?) on the slave
> server so we can commit to the slave and it re-directs the commit to the
How does the script work? Could you make a sample version of it and
add it to the file in notes?
> Generally it works well, however when the commit is "large" (I'm not sure,
> several megabytes or more or at least the commit time of a few minutes
> (???)) then we usually have problems where the slave has not synced up
> the master yet and the client that committed it to the slave gets confused
> and starts giving errors. It has been possible but problematic to get
> things straightened out, and sometimes I've had a svnsync not go through
> and had to manually kick it and/or delete the svn:lock (I think that is
> the property) to get things going again.
> Is there a way to do a synchronous sync with the slave or some code magic
> behind the scenes that could be added in the client or slave server or
> master server to tell the client to wait a little longer to be synced
> up with the slave server correctly?
> I think what is happening is that the slave says "I've committed a certain
> version" and then at the end of the commit it checks that the slave server
> has that version which hasn't been synced yet and it gets confused.
> Thankfully this has not happened a whole lot but it has happened on
> multiple occasions. I'm telling my users that when they have a "large"
> commit (size or time is hard to determine) then to switch to the master to
> commit it and then switch back to the slave again.
> Any help, ideas, pointers, would be appreciated.
Seems like a problem that should be identified and fixed before we
release. Now that we have svnsync it would be super-cool if it could
be formally integrated into this so that you did not need a hook at
> It is a VERY useful feature and it generally works well.
I agree that it could be a very important feature. I'd like to see
someone pick it up and try to polish it up some more so that we could
really promote people to use it when the need exists.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Sun May 20 20:28:07 2007