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

Re: fsfs-format7 integration plan

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2013 01:07:03 -0400

On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann
<stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com> 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.

Today, you ripped out all FSFS support from the FSX backend. That
implies you have an entirely new backend, rather than an upgrade path
for existing FSFS user.

As noted on IRC earlier, we just deprecated BDB so that we wouldn't
have to continue supporting multiple backends. But it seems you have
just created a third/new backend.

> * 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.

Is the idea that people can test FSX independently? And then changes
will go into FSFS on this branch? And then it will get to trunk as
part of FSFS? And that FSX will never land on trunk?

If that is true, then why rip out the f7 support from FSFS on the branch?

> * 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.

See. This part confuses me. It sounds like we're moving to multiple
back ends again.

I thought we wanted to avoid that?

Received on 2013-07-02 07:07:37 CEST

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