On Monday 09 November 2009, Greg Stein wrote: > >> Why did you go with a format change of the DAVLockDB? It is > >> quite possible that people will miss that step during an > >> upgrade. You could just leave DAV_TYPE_FNAME in there. > > > > That wouldn't help because it would still break with > > DAV_TYPE_INODE locks existing in the DAVLockDB. Or am I missing > > something? > > Heh. Yeah. I realized that right after I hit the Send button :-P > > Tho: mod_dav could error if it sees an unrecognized type, rather > than simply misinterpreting the data and silently unlocking all > nodes.
What do you want to do exactly? Check the db at httpd startup and abort if it contains old format entries? I don't think it is possible to convert the entries, at least not without traversing the whole dav tree. In any case, I wonder if this is worth the effort. It definitely isn't for 2.2 -> 2.4 upgrades. And if we backport the changes to 2.2.x, I would still primarily see it as responsibility of the distributors to warn the user/remove the old db in postinst/etc. And for those people who compile it themselves and run a system critical enough that they cannot affort to loose the locks during an httpd upgrade, those people should really read the changelog. Cheers, Stefan
