Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, Sep 02, 2015 at 18:39:38 +0300: > On 2 September 2015 at 17:01, Johan Corveleyn <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Evgeny Kotkov > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Stefan Fuhrmann <[email protected]> writes: > >> > >>>> Given the above, I am -1 on this optimization for svnadmin load-revprops > >>>> that was implemented in r1698359 and r1700305. Please revert these > >>>> changes. > >>> > >>> Thinking about alternative solutions I found that simply having a > >>> buffering > >>> wrapper without mark support would still eliminate the OS overhead and > >>> parts > >>> of the internal overhead. That would address all the points you have made > >>> above while still providing a decent improvement. > >>> > >>> IOW, revert r1700305 and rework / reduce / simplify the code changed > >>> by r1698359. > >> > >> I stated my veto and provided the justification that covers both r1700305 > >> and r1698359. So, could you please revert both of them? Reworking and > >> adding changes on top of it is going to increase the mess and will be > >> harder > >> to review. > > > > ISTR that in this community we try to treat a veto as a signal that > > further discussion is needed, or that more work is needed to resolve > > the question / issue. You may ask / suggest a revert if you think > > that's best, but it's mainly up for discussion how to best resolve > > things (and other avenues, such as further commits, may also resolve > > the issue). > > > You're right, but the problem is that the discussion doesn't happen. > Instead of this new code is committed (usually broken again) [1]. >
Could you please refrain from describing anyone's code as "usually broken"? That's neither concrete nor specific to the issue at hand (r1698359 and r1700305). Thanks, Daniel
