On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Blair Zajac <blair_at_orcaware.com> wrote:
> On 7/6/12 6:27 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> On 07/06/2012 04:32 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>>> Hi devs,
>>> This week I had one of my "how hard can it be?" moments
>>> and finally implemented revprop packing (did that mainly
>>> offline). It passes all tests and seems to work pretty well.
>> Since the new code will not be used unless you create
>>> a format 6 repo, I'd like to commit everything directly to
>>> /trunk for review instead of creating a new branch or
>>> "overwriting" the existing one.
>>> This is the order in which I want to commit the changes:
>>> * refactor existing code
>>> * update the design file
>>> * add the revprop pack support
>>> * add tests; write more tests
>> Should you transpose these last two? Put the tests in place first, then
>> code? Or are these tests of the particular low-level feature behavior
>> mean nothing when the feature code isn't in place?
>> You are right. As it turned out, we needed only one more
test case and a minor extension to another.
Of course, there is always room for more tests but I had
expected that we need more even for the basic functionality.
In that case, writing all those tests while having people
review the code seemed like a better strategy.
> * bump the FSFS format
>>> Any objections?
>> I have none, so long as trunk remains "stable" to the degree we've
>> defined it.
> +1. This is great. My 50,000,000 million revisions thank you!
> svnadmin upgrade should now make your repo incompatible
to anything we released ;)
If you are doing experiments, please have a look at the new
revprop packing related options in fsfs.conf.
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
Received on 2012-07-08 20:26:24 CEST