On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Justin Erenkrantz <jus...@erenkrantz.com>wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:54 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net>wrote: > >> * The appropriate time to stop supporting Berkeley DB is in the same >> release >> for which existing FSFS will also have to dump/load. It is cruel to force >> admins to endure the migration process twice -- possibly in successive >> releases of Subversion -- and especially when one of those times is just >> for >> a (possibly less-than-compelling) bit of a performance boost. >> > > I brought this up here in Portland with Brane et al - but, I'd be a tad > concerned if we're going to make a dump/load *mandatory* for FSFS. Sure, > we can advise a dump/load to get better performance, but I think we have > shot ourselves in the foot with the client-side WC upgrade being mandatory. > I hate the fact that 1.7 and 1.8 can't share WCs and force me to do 'svn > upgrade'. As a developer testing trunk, this really blows... > I guess, Mike's point is that there are ideas floating around to introduce a new FS2 interface in 1.9 or 1.10. That *might* require a different backend implementation. Asking people to migrate *twice*, i.e. BDB->FSFS in 1.8 / 1.9 and FSFS->"FSNG" in 1.10 (even if only to add indexes etc.) would be at least disappointing to admins. +1 on that rationale. I also think that the transition from FSFS->"FSNG" needs to be as smooth as possible. > * That said, I'm okay with deprecating Berkeley DB today as a warning to >> existing BDB users that change is a-comin', though the release notes >> should >> (again) indicate that there's no reason to rush off and convert to FSFS >> until an as-yet-undecided future revision forces the issue for *all* >> Subversion users. >> > > +1. -- justin > That gives us the flexibility to phase out BDB on a short notice in case we really have to. +1 -- Stefan^2. -- Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads: * http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download *
