On 8/2/2013 3:21 PM, Thomas Harold wrote:
Our migration process:
>
> 0. svnadmin verify oldreponame
1. svnadmin dump oldreponame
2. svnadmin create newreponame
3. Modify db/fsfs.conf
[rep-sharing]
enable-rep-sharing = true # defaults to true in 1.8
[deltification]
enable-dir-deltification
On 6/11/2013 8:52 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
One advantage of being in a room full of Subversion developers, specifically
the guy that implemented all this stuff, is that I can ask him directly
about how to respond to this mail. :-) Hopefully I will accurately
represent the answers Stefan Fuh
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 17:32:59 +0200:
> On 06/11/2013 05:14 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > C. Michael Pilato wrote on Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 14:52:48 +0200:
> >> As for the --deltas option, that has nothing in the world to do with the
> >> types of deltas we're discussing here
On 06/11/2013 05:14 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 14:52:48 +0200:
>> As for the --deltas option, that has nothing in the world to do with the
>> types of deltas we're discussing here. (As an aside, I would highly
>> recommend that, unless you need your
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 14:52:48 +0200:
> On 06/10/2013 03:05 PM, Thomas Harold wrote:
>
> > b) Does revprop caching only need to be enabled for http/https access and
> > does it have any effect on svn+ssh access? (All of our users currently use
> > svn+ssh access, but we
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 14:52:48 +0200:
> One advantage of being in a room full of Subversion developers, specifically
> the guy that implemented all this stuff, is that I can ask him directly
> about how to respond to this mail. :-) Hopefully I will accurately
> represent
On 06/11/2013 04:13 PM, Thomas Harold wrote:
> Thanks, the svn book is light on details of what exactly counts as "minimum
> amount of work needed" for "svnadmin upgrade".
svnbook-...@red-bean.com would be a great place to report that, though I'd
suggest expanding your report with some context. Th
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:13:15AM -0400, Thomas Harold wrote:
> Right now, the size of our dumpfile directory is 207G, while the
> hotcopy is only 104G. So the size savings could be big for us. The
> hotcopy backup is still our preferred solution, with the dump files
> being a worst-case fallbac
On 6/11/2013 8:52 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
One advantage of being in a room full of Subversion developers, specifically
the guy that implemented all this stuff, is that I can ask him directly
about how to respond to this mail. :-) Hopefully I will accurately
represent the answers Stefan Fuh
One advantage of being in a room full of Subversion developers, specifically
the guy that implemented all this stuff, is that I can ask him directly
about how to respond to this mail. :-) Hopefully I will accurately
represent the answers Stefan Fuhrmann just gave me to your questions.
On 06/10/2
Questions about the 1.8 upgrade path:
#1 - In reading the release notes for 1.8, I'm interested in the
directory/property storage reduction as described in:
http://subversion.apache.org/docs/release-notes/1.8.html#fsfs-enhancements
Directory and property storage reduction
For each changed n
11 matches
Mail list logo
