> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johan Corveleyn [mailto:jcor...@gmail.com]
> Sent: maandag 5 september 2011 13:15
> To: Ivan Zhakov; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: question for FSFS gurus (was: Re: FSFS successor ID design
draft)
>
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2011 at 01:46:09PM +0400, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> [...]
> > I'm not FSFS guru, but I still feel that FSFS successor ID doesn't
> > worth to be implemented because there is no strong reasons/usage for
> > it. For me it looks like bottom-up design approach.
>
> Also slightly OT (no FSFS-guruness here), but I think another
> important use-case is being able to quickly answer the question "in
> which revision was $URL@$REV deleted?" Or "give me the log of
> $URL@$REV up and until it was deleted."
svn_ra_get_deleted_rev(), which answers this question was introduced in 1.6.
(But I don't know where it is used.)
> This question comes up in practice once in a while (has been asked a
> couple of times on the users-list, and to me personally by some of my
> dev-colleagues). The workaround is usually to script around it for
> example by doing a "log -v" of an ancestor and looking for the first
> deletion after $REV (or something similar).
>
> When it is suggested that this kind of search could also be
> implemented as a feature inside svn (even if it's slow, at least it
> would be part of the core), that request is always refused by saying
> that it wouldn't be performant enough (and consequently eat too much
> resources of an SVN server). I hope an FSFS successor ID storage could
> help in this regard.
Bert
>
> --
> Johan
