Den fre 24 juli 2026 kl 21:03 skrev Daniel Sahlberg < [email protected]>:
> Den fre 24 juli 2026 kl 18:52 skrev Nathan Hartman < > [email protected]>: > >> On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 11:52 AM Ivan Zhakov <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 at 15:06, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 24. 7. 2026 13:57, Daniel Sahlberg wrote: >> >> >> >> Den fre 24 juli 2026 kl 13:30 skrev Branko Čibej <[email protected]>: >> >>> >> >>> On 24. 7. 2026 13:23, Branko Čibej wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On 24. 7. 2026 13:20, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 at 18:27, Nathan Hartman < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> > I'm glad there's a good bit of housecleaning going on around here. >> >>> > We've accumulated so much cruft over the years, it makes my >> >>> > head spin. +1 to axe the ctypes bindings. >> >>> >> >>> Speaking of cleanups, another candidate comes to mind: the BDB FS >> backend. I think now would be an appropriate time to remove it: >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> We can't remove it before 2.0. It doesn't matter that it's >> deprecated, it's part of the published 1.0 feature set. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Just to be clear: the existence of the BDB back-end is equivalent to >> a public API. We have many deprecated public APIs that we can't remove for >> the same reason. >> >>> >> >>> -- Brane >> >> >> >> >> > [...] >> >> >> >> This was discussed previously [1] and we even received a bug report >> from FreeBSD that it doesn't work [2]. In the first link Yasuhito Futatsuki >> was of the opposite opinion: the FS type is not a public API. I tend to >> side with him but I could be convinced otherwise. >> >> >> >> As Yasuhito point out, SVN_FS_TYPE_BDB is a public API which we need >> to keep. I didn't study details but I assume the code in libsvn_fs_base >> only implement a filesystem API reachable via the fs loader (this is way >> over my paygrade so please educate me if I misunderstand something!). In >> that case, we won't break anyone's code so anything that compiles under >> 1.14 will still compile under 1.16, but it it would not be able to load the >> BDB FS backend (just as if you didn't compile it in the first place). >> >> >> >> Of course - we would force anyone using a BDB backend to do a >> dump-and-reload cycle as part of their upgrade. >> >> >> >> Provided my understanding above is correct, I'm in favour of removing >> BDB. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> What do we do with older clients that link with libsvn_fs_base when a >> library upgrade makes that go away? At the very least we'd have to keep a >> stub that implements all exported functions, or we break the ABI. >> >> >> > >> > As far as I see libsvn_fs_base functions are not publicly exported. We >> have some BDB FS specific functions [1] in libsvn_fs, but they already stub >> to newer API and I agree we should keep them. >> > >> >> >> >> In other words, even if we decide that removing BDB support isn't an >> API violation, we can't do this in 1.15 because it's not a trivial change >> of removing a directory and a couple lines from build.conf. >> >> >> > I agree and I don't think we should be doing anything about BDB in 1.15 >> at this point (except for release notes). The proposed plan was about >> removing it in trunk / 1.16. >> > >> > [1]: >> https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/fs-loader.c?revision=1936528&pathrev=1936528&view=markup#l786 >> > >> > -- >> > Ivan Zhakov >> >> >> This was discussed several times before, such as [1], [2]. >> >> Arguments in favor of removing BDB: >> >> (1) It has been deprecated for a long time. >> >> (2) AFAICT most devs are no longer testing BDB so maybe it works, or >> maybe it bitrotted. >> >> (3) Last I checked, some kind of registration was needed to get the >> official sources? >> >> (4) It might not have many (or any) users anymore. >> >> Arguments against removing it: >> >> (1) API guarantees... >> >> (2) Questions about what's involved in actually ripping it out. >> >> (3) Users with BDB-backed repos would need to dump and load them >> BEFORE we remove it... >> >> ...and that means we need to give very clear, advance notice. >> >> So this is my suggestion: For now, let's start by making the >> announcement together with the 1.15.0 release. I suggest to put the >> announcement in the 1.15 release notes as well as creating a separate >> news item for it. In the announcement, we won't commit to removing it >> by a specific date or release. We'll just convey that its removal is >> being planned and may be imminent. >> >> After the announcement is made, Let's take as long as we need to >> figure out the issues of API guarantees, how/what to remove, etc. >> There's no rush to do the actual removal, but I think the announcement >> needs to give users as much time as possible. >> >> Proposed initial draft of announcement: >> >> [[[ >> >> IMPORTANT NOTICE: Subversion's Berkeley DB repository backend (BDB) >> has been deprecated since Subversion 1.8 (13 years) and is planned for >> REMOVAL with a future Subversion release line. It will not be possible >> to access BDB-backed Subversion repositories after upgrading to a >> Subversion release that no longer supports it. The Subversion 1.15.x >> release line may be the last minor release line to support the BDB >> backend. >> >> Users who have BDB-backed Subversion repositories should upgrade them >> to the newer FSFS backend as soon as possible to avoid disruption. >> FSFS has been the default since Subversion 1.2 (21 years). This >> requires to "dump" the repository using a Subversion release that >> supports BDB and then to "load" the repository using any recent >> Subversion release. For details, please see the FAQ entry "How do I >> convert my repository from using BDB to FSFS or from FSFS to BDB?": >> https://subversion.apache.org/faq.html#bdb-fsfs-convert >> >> ]]] >> >> Commenting on my own initial draft: >> >> Instead of sending them to the FAQ, maybe we'd want to write clear >> backup/dump/load instructions directly in the announcement? >> >> Do we want to point out that the BDB backend might not be as well >> tested as FSFS these days? >> >> WDYT? >> > > I think this is a good plan. I would prefer to keep the announcement as > short as possible and link to the FAQ, improving that if needed. > > I seem to remember that we at one point has talked about the lack of > testing - but that may just be on the mailing list..? I would probably not > mention it in the announcement - either something is supported or it is NOT > supported. > > Cheers, > Daniel > > > >> >> [1] "Berkely DB precompiled for Windows" >> Posted to dev@ on 26 Sept 2024 >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/m4o5l9rntc98y6s8wrhsn329by9bhr19 >> Continued here (disconnected in the archives): >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/99zo1wq003109p06dt1tcxyzd7cyyw32 >> and here: >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/7plrvmhk3c0jvhkq1tfwds8j4tmlgslc >> >> [2] "Removing BDB support from 1.15" >> Posted to dev@ on 18 Mar 2025 >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/kn0yw4f8p6tn2tzq4obr5r5v609g6g1m >> >> Cheers, >> Nathan >> > It has been over four days and no further discussion on this thread so I'd like to try making a summary. The last technical comment was made by Ivan answering Brane's concerns about modifying public API ("libsvn_fs_base functions are not publicly exported. We have some BDB FS specific functions in libsvn_fs, but they already stub to newer API and I agree we should keep them"). @Branko Čibej <[email protected]> Does this satisfy your concerns? Anyone else? Cheers, Daniel
