On 15.02.2016 23:45, Bert Huijben wrote:
Are you sure the pool arguments are in the right order here?
The usual order is result_pool, scratch_pool while most of the calls here appear
to use the opposite order.
The pool usage is correct but somewhat confusing.
r1731160 fixes that.
-- Stefan^2.
On 17.02.2016 15:33, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
On 16 February 2016 at 00:47, wrote:
Author: stefan2
Date: Mon Feb 15 21:47:00 2016
New Revision: 1730617
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1730617&view=rev
Log:
Continue work on the svn_repos_get_logs4 to svn_repos_get_logs5 migration:
Switch the l
On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 05:33:21PM +0300, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> As we are adding more and more of such code, more and more users
> become faced with the significant performance regression (see [1] and
> other cases).
>
> Do you intend to resolve this problem in the future commits? I have
> some obv
On 16 February 2016 at 00:47, wrote:
> Author: stefan2
> Date: Mon Feb 15 21:47:00 2016
> New Revision: 1730617
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1730617&view=rev
> Log:
> Continue work on the svn_repos_get_logs4 to svn_repos_get_logs5 migration:
> Switch the last svn_fs_paths_changed2 ca
Are you sure the pool arguments are in the right order here?
The usual order is result_pool, scratch_pool while most of the calls here
appear to use the opposite order.
Bert
Sent from Mail for Windows 10
From: stef...@apache.org
Sent: maandag 15 februari 2016 22:47
To: comm...@subversion.apach
5 matches
Mail list logo
