[Posting to both apr and subversion dev lists.]
I know that largefile support is kludgey in APR 0.9x, but
unfortunately, thousands of Subversion users are still using that
branch (and httpd 2.0.x) because of the binary compatibility issue.
Someone privately pointed out to me today that Subv
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 11:18 -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> In any case: I'm wondering if we should be passing APR_LARGEFILE to
> all apr_file_io calls. Is it necessary? Should we expect problems
> if we don't?
Passing APR_LARGEFILE does not magically change the size of apr_off_t;
it do
On Tue, 2005-05-31 at 11:49 -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Okay, so then there really is a risk here for very large
> repositories, particularly ones using FSFS.
It doesn't matter how large the repository is, only how large the
commits to it are.
> Should we start recommending that such pr
On May 31, 2005, at 11:45 AM, Greg Hudson wrote:
However, we most definitely do need to seek around in FSFS rev files,
which are the most common thing to go above 2GB. APR_LARGEFILE won't
help us for that case.
Okay, so then there really is a risk here for very large
repositories, particu
On May 31, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
Funny, KDE is using fsfs, and I would have expected them to run
into a >2GB revision file.
Well, whattya know. Now Timothee Besset (ttimo) in IRC has just
reported the same "File size limit exceeded" error that we saw on
users@
On 5/31/05, Ben Collins-Sussman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On May 31, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> >
> > Funny, KDE is using fsfs, and I would have expected them to run
> > into a >2GB revision file.
> >
>
> Well, whattya know. Now Timothee Besset (ttimo) in IRC has just
>
Erik Huelsmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 5/31/05, Ben Collins-Sussman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On May 31, 2005, at 11:49 AM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > >
> > > Funny, KDE is using fsfs, and I would have expected them to run
> > > into a >2GB revision file.
> > >
> >
> > Well