I wish you wouldn't change the subject line so often. Bert and I
responded to the original email.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 13:45, Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-08-20, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:31, <julianfoad_at_apache.org> wrote:
>> > +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/upgrade.c Fri Aug 20 14:31:27 2010
>> > @@ -1420,9 +1420,7 @@ svn_wc__upgrade_sdb(int *result_format,
>> > /* ### TODO: Either upgrade to single-DB format here, or quit
>> > * at format 18 and ask the user to run the external script
>> > * 'tools/dev/wc-ng/bump-to-19.py'. */
>> When you first checked in the script, I assumed you were doing that
>> for rapid dev/test. There is no way that I would ever support an
>> external script to perform this upgrade.
> Wasn't sure yet how it's going to work out. The script is to get us
> going while we figure out how to do the 'proper' 1.6-to-1.7 upgrade. Of
> course that won't require an external script. This script is just for
> us devs to upgrade our format-18 WCs to format-19.
> It sounds like you are saying this incremental step must be implemented
> in line. Is that because the sequence of incremental steps as
> implemented in svn_wc__upgrade_sdb() needs to be the same sequence that
> is used by the final 1.6-to-1.7 upgrade?
> I was thinking we might want to implement the final 1.6-to-1.7 upgrade
> as a direct migration from scattered entries files into a single DB.
> That would be potentially be considerably faster and less susceptible to
> losing information along the way due to the complexities of multiple
> intermediate states. (Such as what we can't represent accurately until
> NODE_DATA, for example.) If the DB access functions can be made
> sufficiently agnostic of DB location, that should be possible.
> On the other hand, there may be reasons of complexity why we should not
> attempt to write a bypass, and there may be reasons of testability. I'm
> not sure about that. If so, then of course we'll implement this step as
> an in-line auto-upgrade step and expect it to be called as part of the
> final 1.6-to-1.7 upgrade sequence.
> What are your thoughts?
> - Julian
Received on 2010-08-20 20:11:58 CEST