On 20.09.2015 09:40, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On 20 September 2015 at 00:53, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: >> On 19.09.2015 19:20, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>> On 19 September 2015 at 17:24, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote: >>>> On 19 September 2015 at 14:03, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>> On 19.09.2015 13:12, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>>>>> On 18 September 2015 at 12:49, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: >>>>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 05:41:41PM +0200, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>>>>>>> That branch is complete and ready for merging, but I'm still not sure >>>>>>>> whether we should merge it or not. >>>>>>> I think we should merge it to trunk now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't think this branch can improve much further unless we start >>>>>>> exercising the code ourselves to see how well it's working for us. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ANd I believe it's hard to tell whether these changes provide an >>>>>>> actual benefit in practice without running the code for a while. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I like the debug and profiling functionality. >>>>>>> This should make it easy to tune the system going forward. >>>>>> Ok. It seems people here generally support 'reuse-ra-session' branch >>>>>> concept. So I'm going to merge this branch to trunk and see how it >>>>>> will work. >>>>> +1 >>>> Merged to trunk in r1704048. >>>> >>> The r1704048 broke JavaHL tests. >>> >>> This happens because JavaHL bindings changes content of AUTH_BATON >>> field in svn_client_ctx_t between diferent svn_client_*() invocations. >>> While RA session in RA session pool references AUTH_BATON from first >>> invocation. >>> >>> The most interesting question is it allowed by our API or not? >> Unfortunately, I'd say it is because none of the API docs say otherwise. >> Or at least I can't find any. >> > I also couldn't find any of them :( > >>> If it's not allowed we just need to fix JavaHL to use the same AUTH_BATON. >> I think the most interesting question here is: why is JavaHL doing this >> in the first place? I have to confess I've no idea, offhand. >> > I also have no idea, but I was sort of hoping that you could provide > some insight on this part :) > > Anyway, as we are doing this kind of things ourselves in JavaHL, there > could be other API users that are also doing it, and we will probably > break them unless we revv the API.
Here's one more data point that has nothing to do with JavaHL: The svn-x64-macosx-bdb builder started failing after the merge: https://ci.apache.org/builders/svn-x64-macosx-bdb/builds/253/steps/Test%20ra_local%2Bbdb/logs/faillog -- Brane
