> I think we'd also like to get output that is similar to what happened
> with ARP-1.4.5 (i.e. before the hash table randomness change in APR-1.4.6).
> I believe that was equivalent to lexical sort. The entries are hash keys,
> and the hash function in APR didn't result in the kind of ordering that
> svn_sort_compare_paths would choose.
Interesting, I hadn't thought of backward-compatibility as a real option; I
assumed that the hash table iterator would emit the entries sorted by their hash
values.
For what it's worth, here's what the old version of svnadmin I have kicking
around does:
> /usr/bin/svnadmin --version
svnadmin, version 1.6.6 (r40053)
...
> ls -l /usr/lib/libapr-1.so.0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 May 25 2011 /usr/lib/libapr-1.so.0 -> libapr-1.so.0.3.8
dstn_at_apps3:~/svn-backup-astrometry
> ls -l /usr/lib/libaprutil-1.so.0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Nov 26 2010 /usr/lib/libaprutil-1.so.0 -> libaprutil-1.so.0.3.9
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/1qq.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/2qq.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/3qq.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/4qq.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/36gg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/12ggg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/66gg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/18lg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/55lg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/1gg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/2gg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/3gg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/103lg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/59lgg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/68lgg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/36ggSLACS.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/66ggSLACS.ps
Which sure isn't lexical :)
--dstn
Received on 2012-05-31 21:05:48 CEST