On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Hyrum K Wright [mailto:hy...@hyrumwright.org] >> Sent: woensdag 18 mei 2011 11:11 >> To: Bert Huijben >> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org; comm...@subversion.apache.org >> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1104610 - in >> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc: props.c wc_db.c wc_db.h >> >> On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 1:48 AM, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl> wrote: >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Hyrum K Wright [mailto:hy...@hyrumwright.org] >> >> Sent: woensdag 18 mei 2011 1:11 >> >> To: dev@subversion.apache.org >> >> Cc: comm...@subversion.apache.org >> >> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1104610 - in >> >> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc: props.c wc_db.c wc_db.h >> >> >> >> I understand the desire to get the buildbots green again, and I'm >> >> sorry these revisions which I committed broke the bots, but a little >> >> patience might have been useful here. We have a long tradition of >> >> allowing folks to attempt to fix problems, rather than reverting their >> >> commits without consultation. I kinda wish you'd have given me >> >> another 12 hours to attempt to fix it, rather than reverting. >> > >> > We also have the generic rule that any committer (full or partial) may >> > revert something that makes it impossible for them to do further >> > development. (See hacking) >> >> No, we have a policy that people can revert changes to the *build >> system* which prevent productivity: >> "To prevent loss of productivity, any committer (full or partial) can >> immediately revert any build system change that breaks their ability >> to effectively do development on their platform of choice, as a matter >> of ordinary routing, without fear of accusations of an over-reaction." >> (From: http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community- >> guide/building.html#configury >> ) >> >> I'm not trying to play process obstructionist, just noting that a mail >> mentioning the breakage and indicating your intent to revert would >> have been a nice consideration. >> >> > And tomorrow morning the asf repository will be readonly for quite some >> > time, so waiting till after that will probably cause more delays. >> > >> > Besides, you just mailed that you weren't going to fix this issue... :-) >> >> I guess I should have been more clear: I'm happy to fix my own >> breakage to the buildbots. When indicating I was moving on to other >> things, I didn't know I'd broken the test world. >> >> > Somehow the test that should have picked up the original failure is > broken. >> > It thinks that no output at all for a recursive proplist is ok. >> > >> > So two different bugs (the local changes one; and the base-deleted one) >> > together kept the prop_tests.py 15 test succeeding. >> >> Has this bug in the test suite been fixed? If not, I suppose that's a >> place to start... > > r1104641 fixes the test suite
Great. Thanks for doing this. > And r1104631, probably fixes most of the other problems of the patch. > (Except for the performance regression of single node property reads, such > as used by the merge code) Alrighty, I'll reapply it and see what happens. Is the performance regression theoretical or practical? -Hyrum
