On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 00:37 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Loren M. Lang wrote on Thu, May 05, 2011 at 14:32:37 -0700: > > On Thu, 2011-05-05 at 15:43 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > > Loren M. Lang wrote on Wed, May 04, 2011 at 17:39:57 -0700: > > > > The format file says 3 so I might have made it with 1.3.x. > > > > > > This conclusion is wrong. The format number is NOT the minor release > > > number (because we may bump it multiple times between successive minor > > > lines). > > > > Is there a list of these format numbers and their meanings/features? > > I'm curious what I missed by not upgrading to 4 when I had the chance. > > > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_base/fs.h > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs.h > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/structure
There appears to be some confusion here. I was referring to format under the repository root. The references you gave me appear to refer to db/format. My original 1.4.x repository had format = 3 and db/format = 1. When I created the new repositories, format was bumped to 5. I do not know what db/format was as I already deleted them, but I'd assume db/format for the 1.5.x fsfs repository was 3. My primary question though, was simply whether bdb was normally as space-inefficient as my test showed and whether I should consider it over fsfs for Subversion 1.5.x or 1.6.x+. > > > > > > > > >
