Bolstridge, Andrew wrote on Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 14:51:37 +0000: > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de] > > Sent: 21 June 2011 18:27 > > To: Justin Erenkrantz > > Cc: Greg Stein; Daniel Shahaf; dev@subversion.apache.org; OBones; Uwe > > Schuster > > Subject: Re: serf and sourceforge.net don't get along (was on users@: Re: > > 1.7.0-alpha1 feedback) > > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:18:24AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > That definitely implies something wrong on the client. If the server > > > > is slow, then the client should mostly be blocking. > > > > > [snip] > > > > It's a bit worrying that our new default will require admins to tweak the > > server > > config to provide adequate performance for clients in the default > > configuration. > > > > Then again, there's the chicken-and-egg problem. If we don't force people to > > push for server-side config changes, they're never gonna happen... > > > > Though maybe we should wait for one more release cycle before making serf > > the default, and tell people that to get most out of httpv2 for 1.7 they > > should > > make sure their clients use serf and their server config is adjusted > > accordingly? > > Absolutely. The first thing to do is provide serf as a 2nd option, > make a big song and dance about how great it is, and basically > advertise the fact that it is there (from a user perspective).
Didn't we do it as early as the 1.4 release notes?
