Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 00:44:56 +0000
From: Daniel Shahaf <danielsh@apache.org>
To: Paul Hammant <paul@hammant.org>
Cc: Subversion Development <dev@subversion.apache.org>
Subject: Re: New SHA1 property for nodes returned 'svn ls --xml' invocations.
Message-ID: <20161012004456.GA11327@fujitsu.shahaf.local2>
References: <20160925070223.GA25973@fujitsu.shahaf.local2>
 <e9f3c664-d7df-d015-8be9-5d0f5796ad9f@apache.org>
 <20160926070837.GA27884@fujitsu.shahaf.local2>
 <CA+298UiRhga4cQWHtk3TKAV00CPQ+ybw99_ZrSuzKPG5dOLOHw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160928135215.GB29773@cventin.lip.ens-lyon.fr>
 <CA+298UjpzMZZHknwt4AvBKqR2S-YKatbW+39Lf0AzcbwysBAnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161011064044.GA13625@fujitsu.shahaf.local2>
 <CA+298UgfGhVcXPstpbv48SARwEstscv14JTmWy0FpAwO+=RE_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <20161011205652.GA18078@fujitsu.shahaf.local2>
 <CA+298UgOh-uU0ZBA5DtWxJ1qN-LoRfQmKc0iDnWWtKN+yuMLVg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+298UgOh-uU0ZBA5DtWxJ1qN-LoRfQmKc0iDnWWtKN+yuMLVg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
archived-at: Wed, 12 Oct 2016 00:45:03 -0000

Paul Hammant wrote on Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 20:14:02 -0400:
> > > I've read the ?kw=1 section of the release notes. My use case would not
> > > need keyword replacement. In fact it would need it to be off.
> 
> 
> > Are you sure?  The only situations in which you'd need keywords
> > expansion *off* is if your files *do* have svn:keywords set, but you
> > used neither 'svn export' nor 'svn checkout' to extract the tree in the
> > first place.
> >
> 
> Files will come up and down to Svn with curl (not the svn client).
> I'm taking advantage of auto-versioning (SVNAutoversioning == on).
> They'll be binary, and potentially large too - movie sized. Definitely
> need keyword expansion to be off.

Keyword expansion is an opt-in feature.  Subversion defaults to treating
file contents as opaque binary blobs to be preserved verbatim.

Anyway, in your situation, keywords aren't and won't be a factor.
Consequently you can use the server's precomputed checksum of the
content, which makes the implementation an order of magnitude easier.

> As a test, I'm using openssl to make huge files that
> change wholly with every revision, and trying to find the top limits of
> Subversion. Sadly I've only found the top limits of Docker on the mac so
> far - 60GB.

60GB being the size of each revision of a single versioned file?

Daniel