Philip Martin wrote on Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 13:13:48 +0000:
> Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de> writes:
>
> > Philip Martin wrote on Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 12:32:43 +0000:
> >> The dumpfile order is more interesting. Although we don't specify the
> >> dumpfile order until now it has been repeatable, at least when using the
> >> same executable/libraries. I can see that this repeatability is useful
> >> to an administrator. Rather than fixing the testsuite to ignore
> >> dumpfile order changes perhaps we should remove the random behaviour and
> >> continue to provide repeatable dumpfiles? This would involve using
> >> apr_hash_make_custom rather than apr_hash_make. I don't know whether
> >
> > Instead of apr_hash_make_custom(), couldn't we dump entries in directory
> > order instead? That makes the order a function of the repository mirror
> > dumped, rather than of the software version used.
> >
> > For FSFS dirs are stored in an svn_hash_write2() hash; for BDB they are
> > stored in a skel of node-rev skels; both of these structures are
> > naturally ordered, though in the former case we discard the order when
> > we parse the rep.
>
> That might be possible. There may be other hashes beyond the directory
> entries, I guess the properties associated with a node might be in hash
> order. Making the directory order repeatable only really makes sense if
> we end up with a dumpfile that is identical.
Of course. For properties (both node properties and revision
properties), the same approach I suggested to consistent-order
dump dirent hashes would work for properties too. Are there any
other barriers to reproducible dump files? (What is left -- the
in-dump headrs? The svndiffs?)
I think your apr_hash_make_custom() could be useful for svnrdump.
Received on 2012-02-21 14:25:15 CET