Re: --pre-1.X-compatible and fsfs transaction counter
On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 02:56:27PM -0700, Blair Zajac wrote:
> BTW, I think the BDB transaction names do not include the revision number in
> the transaction name. Should we make BDB use the same format
> <rev>-<base36-number> as the new fsfs transaction names for consistency?
Actually, the fact that the transaction numbers are distinctly different
has been quite helpful in some cases, because it means that you can
identify the filesystem from the error message. (I'm thinking mostly of
user reports that say "I got this error message when I'm running an FSFS
repository on NFS", and it's clearly a BDB transaction id).
Received on Mon Jul 30 14:40:42 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev