On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> It "should" already be faster. Obviously, that's not the case.
I just spent a little bit time with Shark and gdb. A cold run of 'svn
st' against Subversion trunk checkouts for 1.6 yields 0.402 seconds
and 1.7 is 0.919 seconds. Hot runs for 1.6
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:46, Bert Huijben wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: vrijdag 3 september 2010 17:23
>> To: Bert Huijben
>> Cc: Julian Foad; Erik Huelsmann; dev@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] WC-NG: merge NODE_DATA,
On Sep 3, 2010, at 7:10 AM, Daniel Näslund wrote:
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 02.09.2010 10:50, Branko Čibej wrote:
Hmm, this is interesting. :) Git faithfully (blindly?) interprets
Unix
permission bits, whiles SVN faithfully (blindly?) interprets the
co
On Sep 2, 2010, at 4:03 AM, Daniel Näslund wrote:
$ svn diff --git
Index: empty
===
diff --git a/trunk/empty b/trunk/empty
new directory mode 10644
I'd recommend testing this against hg/git before using it, but it
should operat
Hi Stefan,
Thanks for your comment. I've updated the patch accordingly.
Regards,
Wei-Yin
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 9:08 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> thanks for your patch!
>
> I think we should use os.sep instead of '/', because os.sep is more
> portable.
>
> Also, please put spaces aro
rhuij...@apache.org wrote on Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 17:34:52 -:
> + for (i = 0; i < db->nbr_statements; i++)
> +if (db->prepared_stmts[i] && db->prepared_stmts[i]->needs_reset)
> + err2 = svn_error_compose_create(
> + err2,
> + svn_sql
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> Ping. Was the 'race condition' I mentioned in my other mail related to
> 'svnrdump load' setting revprop (which may fail if a hook hadn't been
> set up)?
Yep. I have to try setting some dummy revprop and barf out quickly
before getting caught up in between real
Hi Daniel,
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> From IRC logs...
>
> 09:53 <@danielsh> wayita: tell artagnon
> http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/svn-dev?date=2010-08-20#l83 <---
> has that been resolved?
> (can't find any record in mail/irc archives)
>
> So, do you remember what
As I recall, Stefan recently declared the performance branch "done".
It's encouraging to see a few intrepid users and devs looking at the
branch and providing feedback.
Through IRC and other conversations, I've gotten the feeling that some
of the changes made on the branch might be a bit too wide-
"Hyrum K. Wright" writes:
> Sure, but is this "bring us back to parity with 1.6" work, or is it
> "new stuff we can do with wc-ng" work? If the former, it's certainly
> a release blocker. If the latter, I'm not so sure
We currently have a regression from 1.6, wc-ng cannot record the
revert
Ping. Was the 'race condition' I mentioned in my other mail related to
'svnrdump load' setting revprop (which may fail if a hook hadn't been
set up)?
Bert Huijben wrote on Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:55:44 -0700:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: artag...@apache.org [mailto:artag...@apac
>From IRC logs...
09:53 <@danielsh> wayita: tell artagnon
http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/svn-dev?date=2010-08-20#l83 <--- has
that been resolved?
(can't find any record in mail/irc archives)
So, do you remember what that race condition is? And whether it's
been r
On 2010-09-03 00:24, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 11:34:50PM +0200, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>> Comments? Fears? Enhancements?
>
> I always like simplifications.
> I cannot judge the overall impact of this change, but I guess you guys
> will have figured out the consequences.
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 3 september 2010 17:23
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: Julian Foad; Erik Huelsmann; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] WC-NG: merge NODE_DATA, WORKING_NODE and
> BASE_NODE into a single table (NODE
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 22:51, Hyrum K. Wright
> wrote:
>>...
>> My one concern (and perhaps this comes from not following the
>> discussion closely enough) is how this impacts 1.7. This feels eerily
>> like an eleventh-hour redesign, and our t
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 22:51, Hyrum K. Wright
wrote:
>...
> My one concern (and perhaps this comes from not following the
> discussion closely enough) is how this impacts 1.7. This feels eerily
> like an eleventh-hour redesign, and our track record with these in the
Nope. This has been "on deck"
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 06:09, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> Hi devs,
>
> From what I understand about the performance problems of WC-1 vs.
> WC-NG, and what I'm reading on this list, I expect(ed) a huge
> performance boost from WC-NG for certain client operations (especially
> on Windows, where the loc
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 04:46, Bert Huijben wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: vrijdag 3 september 2010 1:14
>> To: Julian Foad
>> Cc: Erik Huelsmann; dev@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] WC-NG: merge NODE_DATA, WORKING_NODE a
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:52 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> pbu...@apache.org wrote:
>> Fix issue #2915 'Handle mergeinfo for subtrees missing due to removal by
>> non-svn command'.
>>
>> With this change, if you attempt a merge-tracking aware merge to a WC
>> which is missing subtrees due to an OS-level
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 08:58:09PM +0800, Wei-Yin Chen wrote:
> Sorry, that line should have been
> matching_filenames = [f for f in matching_filenames if not
> os.path.islink(dirname+'/'+f)]
Hi,
thanks for your patch!
I think we should use os.sep instead of '/', because os.sep is more portable.
Sorry, that line should have been
matching_filenames = [f for f in matching_filenames if not
os.path.islink(dirname+'/'+f)]
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 8:15 PM, Wei-Yin Chen wrote:
> This patch is for the following file.
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/contrib/client-side/svn_app
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> Thanks for catching this. I'll cook up a test and fix it.
Fixed in r992276, with a new test.
- Julian
> On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 01:22 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > Tonight I ran into a codepath which triggers and assertion.
> >
> > $ svn up
> > subversion/libsvn_w
This patch is for the following file.
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/contrib/client-side/svn_apply_autoprops.py
Log message:
Do not apply autoprops on symbolic links in svn_apply_autoprops.py.
Index: svn_apply_autoprops.py
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 02.09.2010 10:50, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > Hmm, this is interesting. :) Git faithfully (blindly?) interprets Unix
> > permission bits, whiles SVN faithfully (blindly?) interprets the
> > contents of special files ... I wonder if "sv
pbu...@apache.org writes:
> Author: pburba
> Date: Thu Sep 2 18:10:01 2010
> New Revision: 992042
> @@ -5718,6 +5849,37 @@ get_mergeinfo_paths(apr_array_header_t *
> merge_cmd_baton->ctx->cancel_baton,
> scratch_pool));
On Fri, Sep 03, 2010 at 01:47:06PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> s...@apache.org wrote on Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 15:49:52 -:
> > Author: stsp
> > Date: Sat Aug 28 15:49:52 2010
> > New Revision: 990385
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=990385&view=rev
> > Log:
> > * subversion/libsvn
s...@apache.org wrote on Sat, Aug 28, 2010 at 15:49:52 -:
> Author: stsp
> Date: Sat Aug 28 15:49:52 2010
> New Revision: 990385
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=990385&view=rev
> Log:
> * subversion/libsvn_client/patch.c
> (try_stream_write): Remove a question I put into a comment,
> -Original Message-
> From: C. Michael Pilato [mailto:cmpil...@collab.net]
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2010 7:47 PM
> To: Philip Martin
> Cc: dmitry boyarintsev; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Pascal bindings
>
> On 09/02/2010 01:38 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
> > dmitry boyar
On 02.09.2010 10:50, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 02.09.2010 10:27, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Daniel Näslund wrote on Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 07:13:00 +0200:
>>> On Wed, Sep 01, 2010 at 06:37:08PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
This may be off topic, but I'm wondering whether Git has defined such
ope
Hi devs,
>From what I understand about the performance problems of WC-1 vs.
WC-NG, and what I'm reading on this list, I expect(ed) a huge
performance boost from WC-NG for certain client operations (especially
on Windows, where the locking of WC-1 is quite problematic). Also, I
knew I had to wait f
> -Original Message-
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 3 september 2010 1:14
> To: Julian Foad
> Cc: Erik Huelsmann; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] WC-NG: merge NODE_DATA, WORKING_NODE and
> BASE_NODE into a single table (NODES)
>
> On Thu,
On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 5:38 PM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> You are more likely to get some response if you send a patch against
> trunk with a log message, see
> http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/general.html#patches
Thanks for the link. I'm not ready yet with the trunk version binding
Thanks for catching this. I'll cook up a test and fix it.
- Julian
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 01:22 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Tonight I ran into a codepath which triggers and assertion.
>
> $ svn up
> subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db.c:383: (apr_err=235000)
> svn: In file 'subversion/libsvn_wc/wc
33 matches
Mail list logo
