On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Hyrum K. Wright > <hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote: >> As I recall, Stefan recently declared the performance branch "done". >> It's encouraging to see a few intrepid users and devs looking at the >> branch and providing feedback. >> >> Through IRC and other conversations, I've gotten the feeling that some >> of the changes made on the branch might be a bit too wide-spread to >> warrant whole-sale inclusion in 1.7, but several people have expressed >> interested in cherry picking at least some bits back to trunk. I've >> not yet done a comprehensive review of the changes on the branch, and >> would appreciate any suggestions folks may have of low-hanging, >> independent useful bits. >> >> For starters, I would consider: >> * the new svn_io_file_read_full2() API >> * the new svn_io_file_putc() API >> * the new svn_stringbuf_appendbyte() API >> >> Note that I don't include the caching work, since I think it might be >> much more far-reaching, and probably needs more review before going >> into trunk. >> >> The branch should also probably have a catch-up merge to prevent it >> from diverging too far. I'm happy to do so, as well as fix up any >> style nits which may exist on the branch. I'll do some digging to >> determine the various revision ranges to make the above suggestions >> merge to trunk, and post back. > > Hearing nothing, I'll at least bring the branch up-to-date with trunk, > and then go through the logs to find the relevant revisions for the > above bits.
I've identified the first set of revisions: r985014, r985669, and r987893. These make more complete use of the svn_ctype_is* functions throughout the code base. On a more general note, I'm planning on reviewing the revisions and then committing the merge (assuming all tests pass). I invite folks to review the various commit mails (which will hopefully be relatively small). -Hyrum
