On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Justin Erenkrantz
<justin_at_erenkrantz.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:54 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>wrote:
>
>> * The appropriate time to stop supporting Berkeley DB is in the same
>> release
>> for which existing FSFS will also have to dump/load. It is cruel to force
>> admins to endure the migration process twice -- possibly in successive
>> releases of Subversion -- and especially when one of those times is just
>> for
>> a (possibly less-than-compelling) bit of a performance boost.
>>
>
> I brought this up here in Portland with Brane et al - but, I'd be a tad
> concerned if we're going to make a dump/load *mandatory* for FSFS. Sure,
> we can advise a dump/load to get better performance, but I think we have
> shot ourselves in the foot with the client-side WC upgrade being mandatory.
> I hate the fact that 1.7 and 1.8 can't share WCs and force me to do 'svn
> upgrade'. As a developer testing trunk, this really blows...
>
I guess, Mike's point is that there are ideas floating around
to introduce a new FS2 interface in 1.9 or 1.10. That *might*
require a different backend implementation. Asking people to
migrate *twice*, i.e. BDB->FSFS in 1.8 / 1.9 and FSFS->"FSNG"
in 1.10 (even if only to add indexes etc.) would be at least
disappointing to admins. +1 on that rationale.
I also think that the transition from FSFS->"FSNG" needs to
be as smooth as possible.
> * That said, I'm okay with deprecating Berkeley DB today as a warning to
>> existing BDB users that change is a-comin', though the release notes
>> should
>> (again) indicate that there's no reason to rush off and convert to FSFS
>> until an as-yet-undecided future revision forces the issue for *all*
>> Subversion users.
>>
>
> +1. -- justin
>
That gives us the flexibility to phase out BDB on a short notice
in case we really have to.
+1
-- Stefan^2.
--
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
*
http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download
*
Received on 2013-02-27 01:04:00 CET