Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name>:
> > > It makes me twitchy that there's any possible future in which that
> > > format might be unsuppoted or inaccessible.
>
> We _are_ committed to providing an upgrade path from 1.x to 2.x, you
> know. Always have been. You can stop twitching.
It's not 1.x I'm worried about being dropped, it's 2.x. And only
because Julian said he couldn't think of any good reason to use it.
Bitter experience tells me that when devs start thinking that about an
export feature it tends to get dropped in a later release.
> Also, there's a non-negligible chance that your user got an error about
> format numbers because they ran «svnadmin load $REPOS_DIR/db», not
> because of anything to do with v3. That'd be a pilot error on their
> part. (We already have a milestone=2.0 issue to prevent this on our end.)
Fair enough, I'll ask him next time he surfaces on my support channel.
> > > Should I file an issue about this?
> >
> > You can certainly file an issue if there isn't one. (I can't see one in
> > a quick search.) Be aware that there don't seem to be developers around
> > volunteering for this sort of work at the moment. (I'm available for
> > hire.)
>
> What would a fix to that issue look like?
A --version switch on svnrdump that can make it emit version 2. I'm
not worried about Version 1.
But probably the bigger issue for me right now is a whether Subversion devs
understand that Version 2 has real uses and dropping it because you
think v3 is better would cause a lot of unpleasant ripple effcts.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
