[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

RE: current plan for WC

From: Bert Huijben <b.huijben_at_competence.biz>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 10:02:26 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: woensdag 1 oktober 2008 5:43
> To: dev_at_subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: current plan for WC
>
> Hey all,
>
> I've chatted a bit about this on IRC, but wanted to bring it on-list
> for discussion.
>
> The WC-NG is a big effort that can't be "just dropped in whole", so
> I've been considering ways to bring it in piecemeal. My current plan
> for a "next step" is the following:
>
> * text base management will be handled under the wc_db.h APIs
>
> * this will require sqlite to track refcounts for the bases
>
> * bases will be kept in .svn/pristine/... on a per-dir basis like
> today. no aggregation will occur.
>
> * access batons will learn about svn_wc__db_t as a step towards
> migration solely to db_t rather than access batons
>
> * another wc format upgrade will occur to migrate the bases into their
> new home
>
>
> The sqlite dependency may also be used by the fs-rep-sharing if that
> makes it in for 1.6. But this will also give us some time to flesh out
> the addition of a new dependency in our build, our docs, and our
> downstream bundlers.
>
> The impact "should" be rather light, as it should simply be a
> reorganization of the bases under the .svn directory, and how we
> access those bases. Given that we key from checksum instead of file
> name, this shold also simplify the recent "revert base" work that Karl
> has done (no need for two bases under the same name; they'll simply be
> keyed by their differing checksums).
>
> I have committed some new APIs in libsvn_wc/svn_db.h for managing the
> pristine files, and have done a first pass at implementing them (minus
> reliance on a sqlite db). Any comments/review is more than welcome.
>
> I'm also interested in hearing feedback on this plan as a first step.
> I think this is about as far as we can get for 1.6, and it should be a
> light impact for this stage of the release process. The 1.7 work will
> be more substative, but will occur throughout the 1.7 dev process,
> rather than near the end. Comments, please.

+1 on taking more small steps instead of a giant one.

And +1 on taking the first small step(s) now, instead of the giant step
later ;-)

We need a WC format upgrade in 1.6 for at least tree conflicts and file
externals, so doing an extra upgrade step was expected.

        Bert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-10-01 10:02:43 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.