On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:48:20PM +0200, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > This is based on what was discussed in Berlin already.
> > The goal is to get FSFS improvements reviewed & integrated
> > into /trunk a.s.a.p. and to bring the code for the new backend
> > to /trunk as well and continue development there. So, the
> > plan is:
> > * On the fsfs-format7 branch, duplicate the fsfs-f7 code and
> > turn it into a new experimental fs backend. I will name it FSX,
> > with "X" standing for "experimental". It pronounce it "fisiks"
> > which underlines its design goals.
> > * Rip out the f7 code from the fsfs backend.
> > * Open a "fsfs-improvements" integration branch. Merge all fsfs
> > relevant changes in there in a hopefully review-friendly way.
> > * Let people review (give them 2 weeks) & merge the integration
> > branch to /trunk.
> > * Continue work on fsx during that period and merge it directly
> > to /trunk once the fsfs-improvements branch got closed.
> > Everbody fine with that? Comments?
> IIUC, you plan to bifurcate the current changes fsfs-format7 to two sets:
> that will end up in trunk libsvn_fs_fs via the fsfs-improvements branch
> that be f6 or f7?), and one that will end up in trunk as libsvn_fs_x (via
> fsfs-format7 branch). Right?
That is correct.
One might be even identify a third group:
Changes and extensions to lib_subr & friends.
I think, I will merge them "as we go" since they
are small enough for normal review.
> That sounds good to me. Your 3rd and 4th bullets address the "Don't
> destabilize FSFS" concern.
Received on 2013-07-01 13:42:55 CEST