Re: versioning unversioned metadata + anonsvn strategies....

kfogel@collab.net writes:
> "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> writes:
>> What I'm going to ask, then, is why not version at least some of
>> the unversioned metadata. If it was done at least to the extent of
>> providing semi-fake version numbers for metadata changes, one could
>> do nice incremental dumps of the metadata. If it was done so far as
>> to actually fully version the metadata, one could be slightly less
>> paranoid about log edits, which would be pleasant.
>
> Versioning the currently-unversioned metadata is not impossible, but
> would require some pretty significant changes. Try expanding your
> paragraph above into a concrete technical proposal and you'll start to
> see what I mean.

I fully agree. I went over about five ways to do it in my mind, and
just the namespace issue for the metadata versions is
disgusting.

> IMHO the benefit/cost ratio is too low to be doing this anytime soon.

Well, doing it for real, so that you could recover old log messages,
is probably not a very high priority.

However, the other problem seems much more real to me. It would be
*very* useful to allow incrementals to somehow include the change in
the metadata with them, so that incrementals could be used to fully
recover the repository. Being able to fully recover the repository --
or to ship incrementals off to mirror servers to keep them up to date
-- is something that *is* important.

Maybe the repository could mark that certain metadata had been changed
between two version numbers and supply it along with the given
incremental even though (technically) it is not part of those versions?

-- 
Perry E. Metzger		perry@piermont.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org