On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 6:50 PM, Blair Zajac <bl...@orcaware.com> wrote:
> On 7/6/12 6:27 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > >> On 07/06/2012 04:32 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >> >>> Hi devs, >>> >>> This week I had one of my "how hard can it be?" moments >>> and finally implemented revprop packing (did that mainly >>> offline). It passes all tests and seems to work pretty well. >>> >> >> Cool! >> >> [...] >> >> Since the new code will not be used unless you create >>> a format 6 repo, I'd like to commit everything directly to >>> /trunk for review instead of creating a new branch or >>> "overwriting" the existing one. >>> >>> This is the order in which I want to commit the changes: >>> >>> * refactor existing code >>> * update the design file >>> * add the revprop pack support >>> * add tests; write more tests >>> >> >> Should you transpose these last two? Put the tests in place first, then >> the >> code? Or are these tests of the particular low-level feature behavior >> that >> mean nothing when the feature code isn't in place? >> >> You are right. As it turned out, we needed only one more test case and a minor extension to another. Of course, there is always room for more tests but I had expected that we need more even for the basic functionality. In that case, writing all those tests while having people review the code seemed like a better strategy. > * bump the FSFS format >>> >>> Any objections? >>> >> >> I have none, so long as trunk remains "stable" to the degree we've >> defined it. >> > > +1. This is great. My 50,000,000 million revisions thank you! > > svnadmin upgrade should now make your repo incompatible to anything we released ;) If you are doing experiments, please have a look at the new revprop packing related options in fsfs.conf. -- Stefan^2. -- Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads: http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download
