[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)

Cheers,
-g

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.