On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@elego.de> wrote: > This thread is now the only non-FSFS release blocker (filed as #3944). > Last I checked there were at least three solutions suggested, but no > consensus on which solution to implement. > > Some suggestions were > > > 0. Leave things as they are > > 1. Allow packing revisions without packing revprops. > (revprops/ remains as in 1.6/f4) > > 2. Have all revprops in the DB all the time, never in plain files. > > 3. Swap the DB for some other "A thousand revision's revprops in one > file" solution. [several suggestions as to that file's format]
Should there be a new discussion about what is wrong with option 0? My recollection of the thread is that there were no issues raised that really "stuck". Meaning there was speculation and concern that turned out to be fairly manageable and a non-issue. So what is wrong with the current design approach? My answers: 1) I always thought packing was pointless without packing revprops. You get the biggest win from the revprops. 2) I think this would be a terrible idea. Hot backup becomes nearly impossible. 3) As long as we had a good design, this would have been my preference. Mainly because I think adding SQLite adds some unknowns. However, given that rep sharing is there, I am not sure it matters at this point. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
