On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 07:34:56PM -0000, cmpil...@apache.org wrote: > Author: cmpilato > Date: Wed Oct 13 19:34:55 2010 > New Revision: 1022255 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1022255&view=rev > Log: > Propose (without yet adding my own strong vote) the backport of > \^/subversion/1.6.x-no-wcng-check. > > Modified: > subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS > > Modified: subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS?rev=1022255&r1=1022254&r2=1022255&view=diff > ============================================================================== > --- subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS (original) > +++ subversion/branches/1.6.x/STATUS Wed Oct 13 19:34:55 2010 > @@ -174,6 +174,25 @@ Candidate changes: > Votes: > +1: cmpilato > > + * ^/subversion/1.6.x-no-wcng-check > + Remove the function subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c:is_inside_wc_ng() > + and its uses. > + Justification: > + First, per issue #3729, the performance cost of this check is > + atrocious (as it seems to happen many, many times in the course > + of a checkout) and, according to some CollabNet customers, > + unbearable. Secondly, the workaround stsp added to allow the > + 1.6.x test suite to run inside a trunk-managed working copy tells > + us that it's not necessarily the case that creating a 1.6 working > + copy below some 1.7+ wcroot is problematic.
I added that workaround so I could manage a working copy of our 1.6.x branch with a trunk svn client. It was impossible to run the tests otherwise. > It can be concluded, > + then, that we might just be trying to stop a problem that doesn't > + exist, and making every 1.6.6+ user pay a high cost for our > + preventative efforts. That's bad. I think the only reason for this check was to prevent users from accidentally creating 1.6 working copies within a 1.7 working copy. There is value in such a check, but it's not worth the performance overhead you describe. Stefan
