Re: svn commit: r1483795 - /subversion/branches/1.8.x/STATUS

On 18.05.2013 11:52, Bert Huijben wrote:
> We do this because *some of* the callers want this behavior... But all others get the same pain as well.
>
> And then the rename function can just perform a dumb file copy without any precautions when we are crossing a disk boundary.
>
>
> This behavior belongs in a function with a specific purpose: atomic renames of new files.
> Not in a simple file creation function that is used in many places.

This I can certainly agree with. The question remains, however: what can
we do /now/ in order to avoid the potential corruption? I propose we
have two options: use the fix Ivan came up with and optimize it later,
or delay 1.8.0 until what you propose can be implemented.

Personally I don't have a problem with the latter approach, but we know
it could take weeks and would definitely restart the soak. As far as I
know, we don't have any performance data that could help us decide.

-- Brane

-- 
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com