On 26.02.2013 10:54, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 02/14/2013 10:23 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 15.02.2013 04:19, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> and IMHO a resolution to the "deprecate Berkeley DB" discussion.
> My current thoughts on this can be summarized like so:
>
> * The appropriate time to stop supporting Berkeley DB is in the same release
> for which existing FSFS will also have to dump/load. It is cruel to force
> admins to endure the migration process twice -- possibly in successive
> releases of Subversion -- and especially when one of those times is just for
> a (possibly less-than-compelling) bit of a performance boost.
>
> * That said, I'm okay with deprecating Berkeley DB today as a warning to
> existing BDB users that change is a-comin', though the release notes should
> (again) indicate that there's no reason to rush off and convert to FSFS
> until an as-yet-undecided future revision forces the issue for *all*
> Subversion users.
I tend to agree. I propose we do this as follows:
* Write a notice about deprecation and what it means in the release notes.
* Cause "svnadmin create" to issue a deprecation warning when a new
BDB repository is being created.
o this does not mean that calling the underlying svn_fs_create
should also emit a warning.
The latter might have an effect on our test suite, alhough IIRC we only
invoke "svnadmin create" once during a test run.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
