Stefan Sperling wrote on Mon, 24 Jul 2017 14:09 +0200:
> I have slightly changed the default mode of 'svn cleanup' in r1802797.
> It will no longer remove unreferenced pristines from the pristine store.
> Instead, the new --vacuum-pristines option must be used, added in r1802787.
> This runs the same operation under a working copy write lock.
> Note that the default mode of 'svn cleanup' breaks working copy locks.
> The idea is prevent accidental working copy corruption in the unlikely
> but possible case where a user runs 'svn cleanup' with the intention of
> removing unused pristines while another SVN client is concurrently writing
> to the working copy in the background.
> Users will now find that this no longer works, and will find the new
> option instead. This is also the first time we have a documented way of
> cleaning up pristines (neither 'svn help' nor the book ever explained
> how to do this).
No, this isn't:
In 1.7, we recommend to run `svn cleanup` periodically in order to
reclaim the disk space of unreferenced pristines.
> If there are objections to this change, please raise them in this thread.
> The changes are very small and easy to revert if necessary.
This change is backwards incompatible: users who upgrade to 1.10 and do
not start using the new options, will never garbage collect pristines,
and consequently their .svn/pristine/ would grow without bound until
they change scripts to work around this change.
I think that would be a disk space usage regression in some use patterns
(such as buildbot in "run 'svn update' between builds" mode), and thus I
would prefer to find a different way to plug the race condition you
(For example, I thought we might have 'cleanup' garbage collect
pristines older than 24 hours in its default mode, but that would need
to handle the case that the concurrent checkout operation wants to
re-use one of those old pristines.)
It seems the real fix would be figuring out a way for 'cleanup' not to
break all locks it sees. There's a continuum of options between "break
all locks by default" and "require opt-in to break locks". For example,
we could do what Vim does and record the (hostname, pid) pair that took
each lock, and then silently break locks running on the same hostname by
pid's that no longer exist.
To be clear, that was just an example. There are plenty of other
options in that continuum. My tldr is that I am concerned about a disk
space regression and think the right fix is to make 'cleanup' less
trigger-happy / greedy about locks.
> Another idea which was discussed on IRC was that the default mode of
> 'svn cleanup' could be changed to not break locks, and require an
> option for that mode instead. However, I believe such a change would
> be more disruptive and incompatible with the existing behaviour.
Received on 2017-07-24 17:40:46 CEST