On Sat, 2016-01-02 at 12:52 +, Daniel SHahaf wrote:
> Yves Martin wrote on Sat, Jan 02, 2016 at 12:29:54 +0100:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I am reading section "Packing revision properties (format 6+)" of file
> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/structure
> >
On 4 January 2016 at 16:25, Philip Martin wrote:
> Branko Čibej writes:
>
>> Your analysis looks sound, but I wonder if doing this would have any
>> serious effect on checkout/update times; after all, the bulk of the work
>> there is in report generation, only HTTPv2 is affected by GET response
>
Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
> On 04.01.2016 14:25, Philip Martin wrote:
>> - The number of system calls made by Apache goes down
>>
>>68822 to 50664 for hot FSFS cache
>
> Do you have quick way to find out which files
> we are reading in that case? My guess would
> be a fair bit of revpro
On 04.01.2016 14:25, Philip Martin wrote:
Branko Čibej writes:
Your analysis looks sound, but I wonder if doing this would have any
serious effect on checkout/update times; after all, the bulk of the work
there is in report generation, only HTTPv2 is affected by GET response
construction.
Wh
On 03.01.2016 18:50, Hanno Böck wrote:
On Sun, 3 Jan 2016 18:12:47 +0100
Branko Čibej wrote:
GCC (or any other compiler) may do a lot of things, but it's not
allowed to change the way APR pool allocation works. We're not using
malloc(); we're using apr_palloc() & co.
Okay, I think we have a
Philip Martin writes:
> $ svn pg --revprop -r2 svn:date wc
> 2017-01-04T12:52:02.154787Z
>
> I see a Last-Modified varying with the current time:
>
> Last-Modified: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:57:06 GMT\r
>
> Last-Modified: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 12:57:53 GMT\r
The patch may change the caching behaviour for s
Branko Čibej writes:
> Your analysis looks sound, but I wonder if doing this would have any
> serious effect on checkout/update times; after all, the bulk of the work
> there is in report generation, only HTTPv2 is affected by GET response
> construction.
When I checkout Subversion trunk from my
Branko Čibej writes:
> The only really valid reason for removing that code is your point that
> we can't guarantee compliance of the Last-Modified header value compared
> with the Date header value. There's another solution for that ... we
> could check those values in mod_dav_svn and adjust Last
8 matches
Mail list logo