Disclaimer: Most of the below is just my own opinion. There's plenty of latitude in this.
Nathan Hartman wrote on Sun, Nov 17, 2019 at 00:02:34 -0500: > You need Berkeley DB only if you are building support for > Subversion's older BDB repository storage back-end. The BDB > back-end is deprecated and not recommended, but is still > available. The newer and recommended back-end, FSFS, does > not require Berkeley DB. How about changing "not recommended" to "not recommended for new repositories"? For example: "The BDB backend has been deprecated and may be removed in Subversion 2.0. We recommend to use the FSFS backend for all new repositories." Plus a reference to the book, if needed. > In particular, you need Berkeley DB if you are building: > * A Subversion server that supports BDB repositories. > * A Subversion client that can access BDB repositories via > the file:// URI scheme. s/supports/serves/ ? I'm not sure, but perhaps change "if" to "if and only if" and remove the next set of bullets? Point out that 'svnadmin info' will say whether a repository is FSFS or BDB? (That subcommand was added in 1.9 so we can assume it here.) > You do not need Berkeley DB if you are building: > * A Subversion server without support for BDB repositories. > * A Subversion client that accesses Subversion repositories of > any format (BDB or otherwise), when such access is provided > by a Subversion server that supports that format. > ]]] > > Thoughts? > > Nathan
