I have been experimenting with an alternate backend for svn:mergeinfo
data over the last day. I have come to the conclusion that by
delaying one feature to 1.6 (which was originally proposed as a 1.6
feature anyway), we can vastly simplify the svn:mergeinfo backend,
remove some pretty difficult bugs, and get a satisfactory 1.5 released
Specifically, my experiments have taught me a few things:
* Almost all of merge-tracking on trunk now requires no index at all;
most of the queries are just trying to look up svn:mergeinfo on a
specific path at a specific revision, which is exactly what the FS
* ... except that the FS itself handles things like "copying a node
copies everything below it" and "deleting a node deletes everything
below it"; our current sqlite code does not handle that, making it
easy to corrupt the index. And implementing that for the sqlite
code would be tantamount to a complete Subversion-DAG-FS model
implemented for our index.
* The only command that requires a more sophisticated query against
the index is "svn log -g", which essentially needs to do the query
"at revision R, what are all the paths under P that have mergeinfo?"
* I have a completely working implementation for FSFS that keeps
enough metadata in the DAG itself to answer that question
efficiently. So we really don't need to use sqlite for that.
It would probably require a db format bump, but that's not too big a
deal (and wouldn't really need a dump/load; I can give more details
if you want). Hopefully the BDB implementation wouldn't be hard
* My implementation does a little more error-checking than the sqlite
implementation; specifically, the sqlite implementation didn't care
if you asked for mergeinfo about paths that don't exist, whereas
mine does (though it could suppress that error, of course). That
extra checking is already showing me a bunch of bugs all throughout
the client code, and especially in "log -g", where they're passing
in the wrong paths.
* Kamesh's issue-2897 branch would require more sophisticated queries.
(And in fact I think that those queries might enable "log -g" to do
its job better.) But it's controversial whether or not we should
try to get issue 2897 in for 1.5; it's a big, big problem with no
simple answer. In addition, this would require us to fix the
serious bugs in the sqlite index mentioned above.
I would like to propose the following:
* We do not attempt to solve Issue 2897 for 1.5. It is probably
possible to solve it, but it will take a lot of work, have lots of
* We disable "log -g" for 1.5. "log -g" was originally proposed as a
1.6 command; it only switched to 1.5 because Hyrum finished his
implementation. (And there are a lot of good things about log -g; I
certainly have respect for Hyrum's work, and expect that 1.6 could
contain a fixed version of it.) This would allow us to ignore the
"log -g" bugs for now and focus on bugs more central to merge
tracking as opposed to just this one auditing feature.
* Because we no longer need it, we remove the sqlite mergeinfo index
from 1.5. This reduces a huge amount of code complexity in the FS
backends, and lets us not worry about fixing the bugs in keeping the
indices up to date. Because we don't need it, we don't use my
extra-metadata-in-DAG thing either.
When working on 1.6, we can solve #2897 and fix "log -g" with much
more leisure to get it right. If fixing them requires retrying the
sqlite index again, or my metadata idea, then so be it: we can add
that code back in in 1.6 (it's all in version control) and make it
work for those needs then.
But I think we can make 1.5 much more solid and less complex by simply
deferring #2897 and "log -g" to 1.6. 1.5 will still have a superset
of svnmerge.py's features.
(I don't mean to disrespect the hard work done on the sqlite backend,
"log -g", or issue-2897 here. I just think that these are difficult
problems to solve, and that making a release that doesn't try to solve
them and fixing them with more leisure is better than trying to do
everything at once and being full of bugs.)
David Glasser | glasser_at_davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Fri Nov 30 02:12:21 2007