Re: BDB deprecation

2013-02-28 Thread Branko Čibej
On 28.02.2013 09:59, Ben Reser wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: >> I propose we do this as follows: >> >> * Write a notice about deprecation and what it means in the release notes. >> * Cause "svnadmin create" to issue a deprecation warning when a new >> BDB re

Re: BDB deprecation

2013-02-28 Thread Ben Reser
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > I propose we do this as follows: > > * Write a notice about deprecation and what it means in the release notes. > * Cause "svnadmin create" to issue a deprecation warning when a new > BDB repository is being created. > o this doe

Re: BDB deprecation

2013-02-28 Thread C. Michael Pilato
On 02/27/2013 06:28 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 26.02.2013 10:54, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >> On 02/14/2013 10:23 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: >>> On 15.02.2013 04:19, Branko Čibej wrote: >>> and IMHO a resolution to the "deprecate Berkeley DB" discussion. >> My current thoughts on this can be summariz

Re: BDB deprecation

2013-02-27 Thread Branko Čibej
On 26.02.2013 10:54, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > On 02/14/2013 10:23 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: >> On 15.02.2013 04:19, Branko Čibej wrote: >> and IMHO a resolution to the "deprecate Berkeley DB" discussion. > My current thoughts on this can be summarized like so: > > * The appropriate time to stop sup

Re: BDB deprecation (was: branch 1.8 or at least start making alpha releases?)

2013-02-26 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:54 PM, C. Michael Pilato 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 end

Re: BDB deprecation (was: branch 1.8 or at least start making alpha releases?)

2013-02-26 Thread Justin Erenkrantz
On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 1:54 PM, C. Michael Pilato 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 > release