On 10/4/07, David Glasser <glasser@davidglasser.net> wrote:
> On 10/3/07, Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> wrote:
> > "Daniel L. Rall" <dlr@finemaltcoding.com> writes:
> > >> Hmmm, it seems init_adm() does take a 'depth' parameter, so we might
> > >> be able to swing this. I'll spend a few hours on it. If it's done by
> > >> the end of that, great; if not, I'll at least know whether doing it is
> > >> hard or easy.
> > >
> > > Don't bother. As painful as it is, we have to bump the format number.
> >
> > Sigh. I think I have to agree. There might be weird and surprising
> > behaviors if different subdirs in your working copy were to have
> > different format numbers. It just seems like a Bad Road to go down.
>
> Um, this is our working copy format. You know, the one where all the
> information is scattered randomly over a million directories... I'm
> pretty sure that the current upgrade code only upgrades one directory
> at a time anyway! So this is not as insane as you think.
Having taken a look at the code, I am confident that it would be
pretty straightforward *technically* to bump the number to 9 but
preserve current format-8 working copies (or even never make format-9
working copies) until there is a non-infinite depth. Having
varied-version working copies should not be a technical problem at
all. Of course, it could be a social problem as Jack mentions in that
it makes the "line" between 1.4-compatible and 1.4-incompatible wcs a
little blurrier...
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser_at_davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 4 20:35:58 2007