STATUS: preliminary release notes mention WC format change in 1.5?

http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/www/svn
_1.5_releasenotes.html
mentions a possible WC format change. It also mentions this
isn't
really clear yet and needs to be determined later.

If we're going to change the WC format number, I'd like to
replace the
current log processing system (which uses XML) with a
different one
which uses the tuple system also used by svnserve.

Major difference is that if we don't use the XML format
anymore, I
expect both parse time and time for generating the logs will
go down,
and - the best of all - we can't forget to encode fields,
we'll just
serialize internal data structures and reload them again in
a much
more straigt forward way.


bye,


Erik.

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribesubversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpsubversion.tigris.org

Erik Huelsmann writes:
> If we're going to change the WC format number, I'd like
to replace the
> current log processing system (which uses XML) with a
different one
> which uses the tuple system also used by svnserve.
> 
> Major difference is that if we don't use the XML format
anymore, I
> expect both parse time and time for generating the logs
will go down,

Do you have any profiles to back this up?  My concern is
that the things
we do that generate logs are quite file system intensive and
it is not clear
to me that the CPU usage is important.  I'm happy to be
proven wrong, though.


> and - the best of all - we can't forget to encode
fields, we'll just
> serialize internal data structures and reload them
again in a much
> more straigt forward way.

We also have a format for tuples used in the entries files. 
We could make the
routines that read and write entries files more generally
useful.
I don't see any real disadvantages/advantages regarding
either formats.
It is just that it might be better to use similar formats
throughout the
WC admin area.

Thanks,
//Peter

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribesubversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpsubversion.tigris.org

Quoting Erik Huelsmann <ehuelsgmail.com>:

> http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/www/svn
_1.5_releasenotes.html
> mentions a possible WC format change. It also mentions
this isn't
> really clear yet and needs to be determined later.

Wearing my svn administrator hat:
If we're going to change the WC format number, can we please
NOT make the
upgrade of old working copies automatic and transparent?

Lieven

------------------------------------------------------------
----
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging
Program.

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribesubversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpsubversion.tigris.org

On 6/7/07, Peter Lundblad <plundbladgoogle.com> wrote:
> Erik Huelsmann writes:
> > If we're going to change the WC format number, I'd
like to replace the
> > current log processing system (which uses XML)
with a different one
> > which uses the tuple system also used by
svnserve.
> >
> > Major difference is that if we don't use the XML
format anymore, I
> > expect both parse time and time for generating the
logs will go down,
>
> Do you have any profiles to back this up?  My concern
is that the things
> we do that generate logs are quite file system
intensive and it is not clear
> to me that the CPU usage is important.  I'm happy to be
proven wrong, though.

> > and - the best of all - we can't forget to encode
fields, we'll just
> > serialize internal data structures and reload them
again in a much
> > more straigt forward way.
>
> We also have a format for tuples used in the entries
files.  We could make the
> routines that read and write entries files more
generally useful.
> I don't see any real disadvantages/advantages regarding
either formats.
> It is just that it might be better to use similar
formats throughout the
> WC admin area.

I've given this quite a bit of thought and I started to
mention the
ra_svn tuples because they match (in structure) quite
closely what we
have now in XML: a command structure with flexible
arguments. Not all
log-command generators know about the different arguments
that they'll
be passing to the command (in name or number) because
they're passed a
hash of arguments.

It's harder to implement the same thing in the entries
format we have
now. At the same time would it be awkward to start
mentioning argument
names in the entries file (apart from wc-format concerns)
because that
would cause a lot of duplication.

I also thought about using the ra_svn tuple format, because
the ra_svn
strings specify their own size, meaning we can just copy
that data
without having to parse the log file byte for byte.
(Something the
entries reader as well as the XML parser *do* have to do.)

If the latter point isn't one of performance, then at least
I think
it's elegant because we already had the structure in
memory.


bye,


Erik.

------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribesubversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpsubversion.tigris.org