On 03/22/2010 09:46 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> David Glasser wrote:
>>>> Is the attached patch what you had in mind? (Plus similar logic for FSFS,
>>>> of course.)
>>> Ah, yes, that's what I meant; that patch looks great, assuming it
>>> works :)
>>
>> I'll try to polish this up, add the FSFS flavor, and add a regression test
>> when I get some time. Thanks for the report and suggested fix.
>
> Committed in r926151 and r926167. I don't feel particularly compelled to
> backport the changes as the higher-level FS stuffs *should* prevent this
> scenario from ever occurring anyway. Do you have an opinion one way or the
> other, David?
My name isn't David, but I now have 50+ repositories with 8.7 million
revisions between them exposed via a Thrift-like API of svn_fs that
anybody can modify the filesystem in any order, so it if a user could
make a particular set of modifications that would trigger this, I would
feel more comfortable with it being backported if you think there's any
change this check would help.
If we get a corrupted repository, things would be really bad, as the
repositories are being used for an asset management system and getting
1+ commits/sec, it's not like there's developers who could just wait for
the software svn repository to be repaired.
Regards,
Blair
Received on 2010-03-22 19:41:47 CET