add get_version() method to Referenceable objects, describe our versioning scheme #538
Labels
No Label
0.2.0
0.3.0
0.4.0
0.5.0
0.5.1
0.6.0
0.6.1
0.7.0
0.8.0
0.9.0
1.0.0
1.1.0
1.10.0
1.10.1
1.10.2
1.10a2
1.11.0
1.12.0
1.12.1
1.13.0
1.14.0
1.15.0
1.15.1
1.2.0
1.3.0
1.4.1
1.5.0
1.6.0
1.6.1
1.7.0
1.7.1
1.7β
1.8.0
1.8.1
1.8.2
1.8.3
1.8β
1.9.0
1.9.0-s3branch
1.9.0a1
1.9.0a2
1.9.0b1
1.9.1
1.9.2
1.9.2a1
LeastAuthority.com automation
blocker
cannot reproduce
cloud-branch
code
code-dirnodes
code-encoding
code-frontend
code-frontend-cli
code-frontend-ftp-sftp
code-frontend-magic-folder
code-frontend-web
code-mutable
code-network
code-nodeadmin
code-peerselection
code-storage
contrib
critical
defect
dev-infrastructure
documentation
duplicate
enhancement
fixed
invalid
major
minor
n/a
normal
operational
packaging
somebody else's problem
supercritical
task
trivial
unknown
was already fixed
website
wontfix
worksforme
No Milestone
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Reference: tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25#538
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s(<nil>)"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Zooko and I hammered out a versioning scheme on the mailing list: http://allmydata.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2008-November/000879.html has the discussion.
The action items are:
remote_get_version
methods to our four main Referenceable objects:Mostly done, in changeset:0eb6b324a4fcda2f, changeset:bf06492a90a3cc49, changeset:0fab511be531c6f3, and changeset:3e25efc010876b42. The URLs used as protocol
identifiers are:
The version information is attached to the RemoteReference, in the form of a
VersionedRemoteReference wrapper with a .version attribute.
The upload code has been modified to look for maximum-immutable-share-size
and skip any servers which can't handle the share we want to give them. This
still needs tests, though.
Oh, it according to the most recent comment, this might not be thoroughly tested. What shall we do with this ticket?
changeset:89683a39062edc6e adds the test (confirm that the upload code honors maximum-immutable-share-size), so I think we can close this one completely now.