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

multi-wc-format branch ready for initial review [was: svn commit: r1843076 ...]

From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_apache.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:22:10 +0100

I just noticed this old email that I had flagged but not acted on. Re-posting.

Branko ─îibej wrote on 2018-10-07:
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1843076&view=rev
>> Log:
>> * branches/multi-wc-format: New napshot branch for multiple WC format
>> support from the better-pristines branch.
>
> I created a copy of the better-pristines branch so that I can separate
> the multiple-wc-format support and the compressed pristines support, for
> easier review.
>
> The multi-wc-format branch is ready for initial review now; it teaches
> libsvn_client and libsvn_wc to support multiple versions of the working
> copy schema in the same client, including checkouts with an older format
> and partial working copy upgrades.
>
> Still missing is a mechanism for the libsvn_wc (and possibly
> libsvn_client) to determine the capabilities of the working copy at
> runtime (this will be needed for deciding whether to use compressed
> pristines).
>
> Please take some time to review the changes on this branch:

The current diff is:svn diff http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk@1845414 http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/branches/multi-wc-format

From a brief skimming review:

> +++ subversion/tests/cmdline/getopt_tests.py
> -warn_line_re = re.compile("WARNING: Plaintext password storage")
> +warn_line_re = re.compile("^WARNING: Plaintext password storage")

An unrelated change?

> Index: subversion/svn/info-cmd.c
> Index: subversion/svn/help-cmd.c

Looks like 'svn info' prints raw WC version numbers like "29" whereas 'svn help' prints svn version numbers like "1.12". Is there some way we could make that easier for normal folks to grok?

> Index: subversion/svn/svn.c

> + /* Check the latest supported version. */
> + /* FIXME: ### Should we return an error here instead? It seems
> + ### more friendly to issue a warning and continue with
> + ### the latest supported format. */

Not sure.

> Index: subversion/include/svn_wc.h

> + * The oldest supporter working copy format.

s/supporter/supported/g

> Index: subversion/libsvn_wc/wc.h

> * == 1.10.x shipped with format 31
> + * == 1.11.x shipped with format 31

and

> Index: subversion/libsvn_wc/upgrade.c

> +#ifdef SVN_TEST_MULTI_WC_FORMAT
> + case 32: return "1.12";
> +#endif
and other places in this file;

and everywhere:

> + * @deprecated ...
> + * @since New in 1.12.

Updates required since 1.12 was released.

I assume Brane has tested it, but someone else testing too would be good and I haven't. Then this looks likely to be ready to merge to trunk.

- Julian
Received on 2019-08-12 15:22:12 CEST

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