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

Re: USE_DB_PROPS define

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 16:48:02 -0400

On Fri, Jun 4, 2010 at 16:36, Hyrum K. Wright
<hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 15:44, Hyrum K. Wright
>> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> > To anybody concerned:
>> > We currently use the USE_DB_PROPS define to filter out the experimental
>> > use
>> > of exclusive in-db-properties.  Since that will be implemented in format
>> > 17,
>> > which is imminent as soon as Greg is home from holiday, I'd like to
>> > change
>> > the defines from
>> >
>> > #ifndef USE_DB_PROPS
>> >
>> > to
>> >
>> > #if (SVN_WC__VERSION < SVN_WC__PROPS_IN_DB)
>> >
>> > The rationale is that they really just mean the same thing.  I'll
>> > shortly be
>>
>> ... no, they don't.
>>
>> One allows me to test in-db properties by flipping a symbol. The other
>> requires a version bump to test them, which implies a lot of other
>> things. Would failures be caused by in-db properties, or due to some
>> other interaction caused by missing/buggy upgrade logic? Who said that
>> I wanted to test the upgrade logic?
>>
>> I don't understand the rationale for this.
>
> My rationale was that I did want to test the upgrade logic through format 17
> to what could eventually be format 18.  My understanding before you left for
> MX was that format 17 was imminent (indeed, I thought it was ready, you just
> didn't want to turn it on for fear of stuff blowing up in your absence).  It
> appears that that wasn't correct.
>
> We could revert the change, do some hacky #define madness to allow
> USE_DB_PROPS to have the current meaning if not previously defined, or just
> leave it as is fix the upgrade code in the interests of moving forward.  I
> won't have time to hack on the text base upgrade code until Berlin, so I'm
> pretty indifferent in the interim.

Nah... we can leave it in there. It isn't too troublesome. And hey...
my fault for going away on a fabulous sunny vacation, eh? :-P

And the upgrade code isn't/wasn't ready. I slowed down "the rush"
since I already knew it wasn't going to be enabled before I left.
After my commit last night, I think the upgrade code is ready. I just
want to write a few upgrade tests before doing this format bump.

Cheers,
-g
Received on 2010-06-04 22:48:42 CEST

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