I think we'd also like to get output that is similar to what happened
with ARP-1.4.5 (i.e. before the hash table randomness change in APR-1.4.6).
I believe that was equivalent to lexical sort. The entries are hash keys,
and the hash function in APR didn't result in the kind of ordering that
svn_sort_compare_paths would choose.

Interesting, I hadn't thought of backward-compatibility as a real option; I assumed that the hash table iterator would emit the entries sorted by their hash values.

For what it's worth, here's what the old version of svnadmin I have kicking around does:

/usr/bin/svnadmin --version
svnadmin, version 1.6.6 (r40053)
...
ls -l /usr/lib/libapr-1.so.0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 17 May 25  2011 /usr/lib/libapr-1.so.0 -> 
libapr-1.so.0.3.8
dstn@apps3:~/svn-backup-astrometry
ls -l /usr/lib/libaprutil-1.so.0
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 21 Nov 26  2010 /usr/lib/libaprutil-1.so.0 -> 
libaprutil-1.so.0.3.9


Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/1qq.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/2qq.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/3qq.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/4qq.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/36gg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/12ggg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/66gg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/18lg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/55lg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/1gg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/2gg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/3gg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/103lg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/59lgg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/68lgg.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/36ggSLACS.ps
Node-path: trunk/documents/papers/archetypes/paper_plots/66ggSLACS.ps


Which sure isn't lexical :)

--dstn

Reply via email to