On 23 September 2013 13:34, Stefan Fuhrmann
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
>> On 23 September 2013 02:51, Stefan Fuhrmann
>> <stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>> > Hi there,
>> > As of r1525442, there is a new svn_fs_move() API supported
>> > by all backends with BDB providing only rudimentary support.
>> > It turned out that move() should not implicitly issue a delete()
>> > on the source node as this creates all kinds of ordering issues
>> > and, worse, makes it hard to verify incoming changes. Instead,
>> > just call move() as you would call copy() today and issue an
>> > explicit delete() for the source path.
>> > As of r1525467, there 'svn log' now supports all moves across
>> > all RA layers and introduces a new "--auto-moves" option that
>> > reports many of the legacy DEL/ADD pairs as DEL/MOVE now.
>> > Since the actual implementation of that mapping logic is in the
>> > svn_repos layer, other functions may use this feature as well
>> > in the future.
>> Hi, Stefan. Several questions/notes:
>> 1. Why svn_fs_move() accepts two svn_fs_root_t objects? I thought that
>> original plan was to accept only TXN root, since moving is supported
>> only from base revision. Or we're going to support 'resurrecting' move
> It's easy to drop the "from_root" parameter and
> currently, it has to refer to the base revision.
> However, it might be simpler to allow for the
> commit editor to simply specify any old revision
> as the source and let the server check whether
> it is "out of date" (path moved or deleted since
> the specified revision).
Do you suggest to add code to check out-of-date to svn_fs_move() to
check that source path didn't chagne since from_root revision? This
behavior makes sense for me.
>> 2. Could you please add at least several smoke tests for FS layer.
> Yes, that's still a TODO.
>> 3. Do we need format bump? How old FS format repositories will handle
> There will be a format bump this week when
> the log-addressing branch gets merged.
> Yes, I think we should make move() support
> contingent on the repo format. The backward
> compat. variant would be the same as for BDB,
> i.e. storing a simple ADD-with-history.
CTO | VisualSVN | http://www.visualsvn.com
Received on 2013-09-23 12:04:15 CEST