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

Re: Do SHA1 pristines need a wc format bump?

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:13:29 -0400

If in-db props are needed for pristine, then I don't think swapping
their format numbers makes sense.

My only delay in performing the bump for in-db props is testing the
upgrade code. We can cross our fingers, do the bump, and post-bump
complete the upgrade testing. (the exposure would only be limited to
people who run 'svn upgrade' and any devs who are using f16 right now)


On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 14:10, Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> Compiling with SVN_EXPERIMENTAL_PRISTINE causes pristine text to be
> stored in .svn/pristine/ using SHA1 filenames instead of
> .svn/text-base/ using filenames derived from the working file.  It's
> nearly complete enough to pass the regression test, I'm down to 4
> FAILs at present.
> I've reached the stage where I need to teach the regression test to
> find pristine text in the new locations, and the problem is that the
> testsuite doesn't know whether to look for the old or the new name.  I
> can hack it by having SVN_EXPERIMENTAL_PRISTINE no longer create the
> text-base directory, and use that to indicate which file to expect.
> However I think this is an indication that the wc format needs to be
> bumped.  Essentially you cannot mix clients built with and without
> SVN_EXPERIMENTAL_PRISTINE, neither handles the others working copy.
> There is already some upgrade code for SHA1 pristines, but it assumes
> that the in-db-props upgrade happens first.  So, I'm thinking of
> switching those two and making format 17 the one that enables SHA1
> pristines, leaving in-db-props to format 18.  Initially this would
> still be conditional on SVN_EXPERIMENTAL_PRISTINE, so in the short
> term people would continue to use format 16.
> One problem is that we probably can't fix all the
> SVN_EXPERIMENTAL_PRISTINE FAILs until the NODE_DATA 4'th tree appears.
> If that means we want to delay removing the SVN_EXPERIMENTAL_PRISTINE
> conditional, we run in to the problem that in-db-props might want to
> start using format 17 first.  It's not a big problem, we can assume
> that anyone who uses SVN_EXPERIMENTAL_PRISTINE realises that the
> format upgrade might not be stable.
> --
> Philip
Received on 2010-06-25 20:14:08 CEST

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