On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 01:46:09PM +0400, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> I'm not FSFS guru, but I still feel that FSFS successor ID doesn't
> worth to be implemented because there is no strong reasons/usage for
> it. For me it looks like bottom-up design approach.
Also slightly OT (no FSFS-guruness here), but I think another
important use-case is being able to quickly answer the question "in
which revision was $URL@$REV deleted?" Or "give me the log of
$URL@$REV up and until it was deleted."
This question comes up in practice once in a while (has been asked a
couple of times on the users-list, and to me personally by some of my
dev-colleagues). The workaround is usually to script around it for
example by doing a "log -v" of an ancestor and looking for the first
deletion after $REV (or something similar).
When it is suggested that this kind of search could also be
implemented as a feature inside svn (even if it's slow, at least it
would be part of the core), that request is always refused by saying
that it wouldn't be performant enough (and consequently eat too much
resources of an SVN server). I hope an FSFS successor ID storage could
help in this regard.
Received on 2011-09-05 13:15:43 CEST