Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 13:42:19 +0200:
> 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:
> > one
> > that will end up in trunk libsvn_fs_fs via the fsfs-improvements branch
> > (will
> > that be f6 or f7?), and one that will end up in trunk as libsvn_fs_x (via
> > the
> > 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.
Right. Your change yesterday to the fs loader for >2 backends is an
example of this.
Received on 2013-07-01 14:12:16 CEST