> -----Original Message-----
> From: julianfoad_at_apache.org [mailto:julianfoad_at_apache.org]
> Sent: woensdag 4 november 2015 18:58
> To: commits_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r1712600 -
> Author: julianfoad
> Date: Wed Nov 4 17:57:50 2015
> New Revision: 1712600
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1712600&view=rev
> * subversion/include/svn_fs.h
> (svn_fs_txns group): Remove an obsolete comment about transaction
> It described a naming scheme introduced in r865504 and removed in
> (Committed previously as ^/subversion/branches/move-tracking-
> 2_at_1607290, but
> unrelated to that branch.)
> Modified: subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_fs.h
> --- subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_fs.h (original)
> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/include/svn_fs.h Wed Nov 4 17:57:50
> @@ -1076,15 +1076,12 @@ svn_fs_unparse_id(const svn_fs_id_t *id,
> * set.
> * The Subversion filesystem will make a best effort to not reuse
> - * transaction names. The Berkeley DB backend generates transaction
> - * names using a sequence, or a counter, which is stored in the BDB
> + * transaction names. The BDB and FSFS backends generate transaction
> + * names using a sequence, or a counter, which is stored in the
> * database. Each new transaction increments the counter. The
> * current value of the counter is not serialized into a filesystem
> * dump file, so dumping and restoring the repository will reset the
> - * sequence and reuse transaction names. The FSFS backend generates a
> - * transaction name using the hostname, process ID and current time in
> - * microseconds since 00:00:00 January 1, 1970 UTC. So it is
> - * extremely unlikely that a transaction name will be reused.
> + * sequence and reuse transaction names.
I would have said it 'may' reuse transaction names.
I don't think we promise that they will actually be reused or not. And perhaps the format may change again in the future.
Received on 2015-11-05 16:38:09 CET