On Tue, 28 Jul 2026 at 18:22, Nathan Hartman <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 9:58 AM Nathan Hartman <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jul 28, 2026 at 8:10 AM Daniel Sahlberg > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Den fre 24 juli 2026 kl 21:03 skrev Daniel Sahlberg < > [email protected]>: > > >> > > >> Den fre 24 juli 2026 kl 18:52 skrev Nathan Hartman < > [email protected]>: > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 11:52 AM Ivan Zhakov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>> > > > >>> > On Fri, 24 Jul 2026 at 15:06, Branko Čibej <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >>> >> > > >>> >> On 24. 7. 2026 13:57, Daniel Sahlberg wrote: > > >>> >> > > >>> >> Den fre 24 juli 2026 kl 13:30 skrev Branko Čibej < > [email protected]>: > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> On 24. 7. 2026 13:23, Branko Čibej wrote: > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> On 24. 7. 2026 13:20, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> On Sat, 18 Jul 2026 at 18:27, Nathan Hartman < > [email protected]> wrote: > > >>> >>> > I'm glad there's a good bit of housecleaning going on around > here. > > >>> >>> > We've accumulated so much cruft over the years, it makes my > > >>> >>> > head spin. +1 to axe the ctypes bindings. > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> Speaking of cleanups, another candidate comes to mind: the BDB > FS backend. I think now would be an appropriate time to remove it: > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> We can't remove it before 2.0. It doesn't matter that it's > deprecated, it's part of the published 1.0 feature set. > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> Just to be clear: the existence of the BDB back-end is > equivalent to a public API. We have many deprecated public APIs that we > can't remove for the same reason. > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> -- Brane > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> > [...] > > >>> >> > > >>> >> This was discussed previously [1] and we even received a bug > report from FreeBSD that it doesn't work [2]. In the first link Yasuhito > Futatsuki was of the opposite opinion: the FS type is not a public API. I > tend to side with him but I could be convinced otherwise. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> As Yasuhito point out, SVN_FS_TYPE_BDB is a public API which we > need to keep. I didn't study details but I assume the code in > libsvn_fs_base only implement a filesystem API reachable via the fs loader > (this is way over my paygrade so please educate me if I misunderstand > something!). In that case, we won't break anyone's code so anything that > compiles under 1.14 will still compile under 1.16, but it it would not be > able to load the BDB FS backend (just as if you didn't compile it in the > first place). > > >>> >> > > >>> >> Of course - we would force anyone using a BDB backend to do a > dump-and-reload cycle as part of their upgrade. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> Provided my understanding above is correct, I'm in favour of > removing BDB. > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> > > >>> >> What do we do with older clients that link with libsvn_fs_base > when a library upgrade makes that go away? At the very least we'd have to > keep a stub that implements all exported functions, or we break the ABI. > > >>> >> > > >>> > > > >>> > As far as I see libsvn_fs_base functions are not publicly > exported. We have some BDB FS specific functions [1] in libsvn_fs, but they > already stub to newer API and I agree we should keep them. > > >>> > > > >>> >> > > >>> >> In other words, even if we decide that removing BDB support isn't > an API violation, we can't do this in 1.15 because it's not a trivial > change of removing a directory and a couple lines from build.conf. > > >>> >> > > >>> > I agree and I don't think we should be doing anything about BDB in > 1.15 at this point (except for release notes). The proposed plan was about > removing it in trunk / 1.16. > > >>> > > > >>> > [1]: > https://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs/fs-loader.c?revision=1936528&pathrev=1936528&view=markup#l786 > > >>> > > > >>> > -- > > >>> > Ivan Zhakov > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> This was discussed several times before, such as [1], [2]. > > >>> > > >>> Arguments in favor of removing BDB: > > >>> > > >>> (1) It has been deprecated for a long time. > > >>> > > >>> (2) AFAICT most devs are no longer testing BDB so maybe it works, or > > >>> maybe it bitrotted. > > >>> > > >>> (3) Last I checked, some kind of registration was needed to get the > > >>> official sources? > > >>> > > >>> (4) It might not have many (or any) users anymore. > > >>> > > >>> Arguments against removing it: > > >>> > > >>> (1) API guarantees... > > >>> > > >>> (2) Questions about what's involved in actually ripping it out. > > >>> > > >>> (3) Users with BDB-backed repos would need to dump and load them > > >>> BEFORE we remove it... > > >>> > > >>> ...and that means we need to give very clear, advance notice. > > >>> > > >>> So this is my suggestion: For now, let's start by making the > > >>> announcement together with the 1.15.0 release. I suggest to put the > > >>> announcement in the 1.15 release notes as well as creating a separate > > >>> news item for it. In the announcement, we won't commit to removing it > > >>> by a specific date or release. We'll just convey that its removal is > > >>> being planned and may be imminent. > > >>> > > >>> After the announcement is made, Let's take as long as we need to > > >>> figure out the issues of API guarantees, how/what to remove, etc. > > >>> There's no rush to do the actual removal, but I think the > announcement > > >>> needs to give users as much time as possible. > > >>> > > >>> Proposed initial draft of announcement: > > >>> > > >>> [[[ > > >>> > > >>> IMPORTANT NOTICE: Subversion's Berkeley DB repository backend (BDB) > > >>> has been deprecated since Subversion 1.8 (13 years) and is planned > for > > >>> REMOVAL with a future Subversion release line. It will not be > possible > > >>> to access BDB-backed Subversion repositories after upgrading to a > > >>> Subversion release that no longer supports it. The Subversion 1.15.x > > >>> release line may be the last minor release line to support the BDB > > >>> backend. > > >>> > > >>> Users who have BDB-backed Subversion repositories should upgrade them > > >>> to the newer FSFS backend as soon as possible to avoid disruption. > > >>> FSFS has been the default since Subversion 1.2 (21 years). This > > >>> requires to "dump" the repository using a Subversion release that > > >>> supports BDB and then to "load" the repository using any recent > > >>> Subversion release. For details, please see the FAQ entry "How do I > > >>> convert my repository from using BDB to FSFS or from FSFS to BDB?": > > >>> https://subversion.apache.org/faq.html#bdb-fsfs-convert > > >>> > > >>> ]]] > > >>> > > >>> Commenting on my own initial draft: > > >>> > > >>> Instead of sending them to the FAQ, maybe we'd want to write clear > > >>> backup/dump/load instructions directly in the announcement? > > >>> > > >>> Do we want to point out that the BDB backend might not be as well > > >>> tested as FSFS these days? > > >>> > > >>> WDYT? > > >> > > >> > > >> I think this is a good plan. I would prefer to keep the announcement > as short as possible and link to the FAQ, improving that if needed. > > >> > > >> I seem to remember that we at one point has talked about the lack of > testing - but that may just be on the mailing list..? I would probably not > mention it in the announcement - either something is supported or it is NOT > supported. > > >> > > >> Cheers, > > >> Daniel > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> [1] "Berkely DB precompiled for Windows" > > >>> Posted to dev@ on 26 Sept 2024 > > >>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/m4o5l9rntc98y6s8wrhsn329by9bhr19 > > >>> Continued here (disconnected in the archives): > > >>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/99zo1wq003109p06dt1tcxyzd7cyyw32 > > >>> and here: > > >>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/7plrvmhk3c0jvhkq1tfwds8j4tmlgslc > > >>> > > >>> [2] "Removing BDB support from 1.15" > > >>> Posted to dev@ on 18 Mar 2025 > > >>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread/kn0yw4f8p6tn2tzq4obr5r5v609g6g1m > > >>> > > >>> Cheers, > > >>> Nathan > > > > > > > > > It has been over four days and no further discussion on this thread so > I'd like to try making a summary. The last technical comment was made by > Ivan answering Brane's concerns about modifying public API ("libsvn_fs_base > functions are not publicly exported. We have some BDB FS specific functions > in libsvn_fs, but they already stub to newer API and I agree we should keep > them"). > > > > > > @Branko Čibej Does this satisfy your concerns? > > > > > > Anyone else? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Daniel > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently 'svnadmin help create' has this to say about the --fs-type arg: > > > > --fs-type ARG : type of repository: > > 'fsfs' (default), 'bdb' or 'fsx' > > CAUTION: FSX is for EXPERIMENTAL use only! > > > > Perhaps there should also be a "WARNING: BDB will be removed in an > > upcoming release?" or something to that effect? > > > I have drafted a notice of BDB's impending removal in the 1.15 release > notes > in r1936672. > > The text looks good to me! Thanks! -- Ivan Zhakov
