On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 8:59 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote: > On 11/30/2012 09:44 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:52 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> >> wrote: >>> [I'm going to try to summarize the body of responses generated from this >>> original query -- a conversational reset, if you will -- so as to keep this >>> line of inquiry moving toward closure.] >>> >> [..] >> >>> >>>> 3) libsvn_ra_serf stabilization. I know there have been a couple concerns >>>> that Philip has raised (EAGAIN and the random failures). >>> >>> Philip and Ivan both seem keen on reinstating ra_neon. >>> >> While I was strongly against making ra_serf as default in svn 1.7, I >> don't remember that I suggested to reinstate ra_neon. > > Oops! Sorry for misrepresenting you views! > No problem :)
>> I believe that most of the issues comes from the skelta mode (XML >> report with many PROPFINDs/GETs) update editor implementation in >> ra_serf. > > [...] > >> We already reduced number of requests for 1.8 servers, so may be we >> can choose to use "skelta mode" for 1.8 servers and non-skelta >> (ra_neon style) for pre-1.8 servers? > > I'm adding send-all support to ra_serf right now, but will leave it #if'd > out until we decide in what scenarios we wish to use it. > Wow! That's great! Are you going to add it to existing code or implement separate update_editor? Implementing separate update_editor may be better since current implementation is extremely overloaded. -- Ivan Zhakov
