On Jul 30, 2007, at 5:38 AM, Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> 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).
Well, we could encode the filesystem type into the transaction name
explicitly, just so new comers to svn don't know this magical rule
that "<base36>" -> BDB and "<rev>-<base36>" -> fsfs.
Regards,
Blair
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jul 30 16:49:55 2007