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

Re: svn commit: r1311476 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs: fs.h fs_fs.c

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 14:07:08 +0100

On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 09:46:34PM -0000, stefan2_at_apache.org wrote:
> Author: stefan2
> Date: Mon Apr 9 21:46:34 2012
> New Revision: 1311476
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1311476&view=rev
> Log:
> Turn hard-coded deltification parameters into config parameters
> for format 4 and later (they all keep compatibility with 1.6 and 1.7).

I just came accross this snippet in the config:

> +"### The following parameter enables deltification for properties on files" NL
> +"### and directories. Overall, this is a minor tuning option but can save" NL
> +"### some disk space if frequently merge or if you frequently change node" NL
> +"### properties. You should not activate this if rep-sharing has been" NL
> +"### disabled." NL
> +"### property deltification is disabled by default." NL
> +"# " CONFIG_OPTION_ENABLE_PROPS_DELTIFICATION " = true" NL

I don't like the sound of "You should not active this if..."

This sounds as if we're relying on users to keep their configuration
files consistent to get proper behaviour, which I hope isn't the case!

What happens if this option is activated anyway? Will the user be
left with a corrupt repository, or will the option have no effect,
or something else?

I haven't checked the code. Maybe the configuration file comment
just uses misleading wording?

I think this should rather say something like "You cannot activate this
if ..." or "This option has no effect unless...". With appropriate
implementation behaviour to back these claims up, of course.
Received on 2012-11-09 14:07:46 CET

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