I guess "badness" can happen only when accessing repositories locally (not via svn:// or http(s)://) with patched and not patched SVN. But usually only one version of SVN is installed on the server side, so that should not be a big problem.
However, it's a nice exercise to check. Vyacheslav On Nov 25, 2011, at 1:29 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > To clarify, the issues I was concerned about weren't with tree changes > (the level of the code dealing with content reps isn't aware of those), > but with creating/accessing a single repository sometimes via > unmodified svn 1.7.1 libraries and sometimes via forward-delta-patched > libraries. > > The part I left to the readers was determining whther or not Badness > will happen in the event of such "mixed" access. > > Vyacheslav Zholudev wrote on Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 13:20:55 +0100: >> Thanks, I studied math not in English, that's why I didn't know :) >> >> I made a simple tests and it seems to work nicely. However, I'm not sure >> whether it will work with more complicated cases like copying, deleting, etc. >> >> >> Vyacheslav >> >> On Nov 25, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >> >>> "left as an exercise for the reader" --- in other words, I was >>> identifying a potential issue and letting the audience figure out the >>> solution for themselves. It's a standard idiom in math textbooks... >>> >>> (and, of course, if you have questions about that interoperability >>> issue, feel free to raise them on this list.) >>> >>> Vyacheslav Zholudev wrote on Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 13:07:52 +0100: >>>> Thanks, Daniel. That's the pointer I needed. >>>> However, I didn't understand what LAAEFTR means. >>>> >>>> Vyacheslav >>>> >>>> >>>> On Nov 25, 2011, at 12:17 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >>>> >>>>> Change SVN_FS_BASE__MIN_FORWARD_DELTAS_FORMAT to be larger than >>>>> SVN_FS_BASE__FORMAT_NUMBER. >>>>> >>>>> Whether repositories created by an svn patched in this way will be >>>>> interoperable with repositories created by an unpatched svn is >>>>> LAAEFTR'd. I'd be cautious and change db/fs-type or db/format. >>>>> >>>>> Vyacheslav Zholudev wrote on Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:04:22 +0100: >>>>>> Hi Daniel, >>>>>> >>>>>> would it be easy to change the code (I want to do it for my experiments) >>>>>> so that the HEAD (youngest) revisions are stored as fulltexts? Or is it >>>>>> something that was not foreseen by design to easily switch between >>>>>> approaches of representing history information? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>> Vyacheslav >>>>>> >>>>>> On Nov 25, 2011, at 11:59 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Vyacheslav Zholudev wrote on Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 11:13:00 +0100: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Old BDB-backed repositories stored the older revision as fulltext and >>>>>>>>> newer revisions as deltas. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Really? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It seems that I should have swapped "older" and "newer" in the quoted >>>>>>> sentence. Thanks for catching that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Here is a quotation from SVN 1.4.6 libsvn_fs_base/note/structure: >>>>>>>> "At present, Subversion generally stores >>>>>>>> the youngest strings in "fulltext" form, and older strings as "delta"s >>>>>>>> against them (unless the delta would save no space compared to the >>>>>>>> fulltext). >>>>>>>> " >>>>>>>> My own experiments with SVN 1.4 code confirm that. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Repositories created with or 'svnadmin >>>>>>>>> upgrade'd by 1.6 and newer reverse this for new revisions of files >>>>>>>>> (while making sure not to introduce a dependency loop in the direction >>>>>>>>> of deltas). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> http://subversion.apache.org/docs/release-notes/1.6#bdb-forward-deltas >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Friday, November 25, 2011 1:08 AM, "Vyacheslav Zholudev" >>>>>>>>> <vyacheslav.zholu...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> how does SVN 1.7.1 store fulltext and deltas in the BDB backend? >>>>>>>>>> From some time ago I remember that previous versions of SVN stored >>>>>>>>>> "almost" always a HEAD revision as fulltext, and others as reverse >>>>>>>>>> deltas.(except the case when a delta is bigger that fulltext) Was >>>>>>>>>> this behavior changed in SVN 1.7? I've looked at the notes about BDB >>>>>>>>>> and they don't differ almost at all from SVN 1.4's ones. Of course, >>>>>>>>>> I could look into the code more carefully, but my hope was that it >>>>>>>>>> wouldn't be a big deal to give me a short answer, if possible. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>>> Vyacheslav >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>
