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

Re: Upgrade from 1.6 must use the same incremental steps? [was: svn commit: r987526 - ...]

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 14:11:21 -0400

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

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.