On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danie...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:48:20PM +0200, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > This is based on what was discussed in Berlin already. > > > > The goal is to get FSFS improvements reviewed & integrated > > into /trunk a.s.a.p. and to bring the code for the new backend > > to /trunk as well and continue development there. So, the > > plan is: > > > > * On the fsfs-format7 branch, duplicate the fsfs-f7 code and > > turn it into a new experimental fs backend. I will name it FSX, > > with "X" standing for "experimental". It pronounce it "fisiks" > > which underlines its design goals. > > > > * Rip out the f7 code from the fsfs backend. > > > > * Open a "fsfs-improvements" integration branch. Merge all fsfs > > relevant changes in there in a hopefully review-friendly way. > > > > * Let people review (give them 2 weeks) & merge the integration > > branch to /trunk. > > > > * Continue work on fsx during that period and merge it directly > > to /trunk once the fsfs-improvements branch got closed. > > > > Everbody fine with that? Comments? > > > > IIUC, you plan to bifurcate the current changes fsfs-format7 to two sets: > one > that will end up in trunk libsvn_fs_fs via the fsfs-improvements branch > (will > that be f6 or f7?), and one that will end up in trunk as libsvn_fs_x (via > the > fsfs-format7 branch). Right? > That is correct. One might be even identify a third group: Changes and extensions to lib_subr & friends. I think, I will merge them "as we go" since they are small enough for normal review. > That sounds good to me. Your 3rd and 4th bullets address the "Don't > destabilize FSFS" concern. > -- Stefan^2.
