On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 14:07, Mark Phippard wrote:
>...
> I would like to also think that we will not even consider shipping
> 1.7.0 unless it is faster overall than 1.6, and that would likely
> include being faster for the API usage patterns of TortoiseSVN.
Absolutely true. Which is why aspersi
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 13:58, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>...
> Greg: See above. We've plenty of WC-NG plumbing to deal with before ever
> needing to engage the topic of "which of a handful of call and response
> paradigms will do the job and make us happiest". Can we defer that decision
> until
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 1:58 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Stefan: As I've said before, TortoiseSVN will have what it needs to
> function and function well. The code is in a crazy state of flux right now,
> though, and we don't want to wind up whipping out un-thought-out APIs to
> satisfy your
C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Stefan Küng wrote:
>> And I thought this mailing list was to be used to discuss stuff, raise
>> concerns and get to an agreement on how things should be done. Silly me.
>> Seems it's only "take what's there and stop complaining".
>>
>>
>> Your attitude sucks.
>>
>>
>> Ste
Stefan Küng wrote:
> And I thought this mailing list was to be used to discuss stuff, raise
> concerns and get to an agreement on how things should be done. Silly me.
> Seems it's only "take what's there and stop complaining".
>
>
> Your attitude sucks.
>
>
> Stefan
>
> P.S. Since I have now a
On 18.06.2010 19:11, Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:28, Stefan Küng wrote:
...
Since you obviously haven't read my post here:
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2010-06/0250.shtml
I read it. I read practically every post on dev@ *AND* most of the
posts to comm...@.
I didn't respond
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:28, Stefan Küng wrote:
>...
> Since you obviously haven't read my post here:
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2010-06/0250.shtml
I read it. I read practically every post on dev@ *AND* most of the
posts to comm...@.
I didn't respond because I didn't like the idea. We've
On 18.06.2010 06:46, Greg Stein wrote:
[snip]
on. Offer some suggestions for improvements, rather than "wah wah, I
don't like it".
Thanks for the insult. Hope you feel better now.
Since you obviously haven't read my post here:
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2010-06/0250.shtml
So again, I sugg
On 18.06.2010 14:30, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 01:19:18PM +0200, Stefan Küng wrote:
On 18.06.2010 06:46, Greg Stein wrote:
The idea is: the status callback is invoked with the *limited* status
information. If you want more, then from *within* that callback, make
a function
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 01:19:18PM +0200, Stefan Küng wrote:
>> On 18.06.2010 06:46, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> The idea is: the status callback is invoked with the *limited* status
>>> information. If you want more, then from *within* that callbac
On 18.06.2010 14:15, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 02:13:16PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
We've discussed this before, so I think you're aware of benchmarks
reports such as http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2010-02/0241.shtml
Another interesting one is here:
http://svn.haxx.se/
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 01:19:18PM +0200, Stefan Küng wrote:
> On 18.06.2010 06:46, Greg Stein wrote:
> >The idea is: the status callback is invoked with the *limited* status
> >information. If you want more, then from *within* that callback, make
> >a function call back in
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 02:13:16PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> We've discussed this before, so I think you're aware of benchmarks
> reports such as http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2010-02/0241.shtml
Another interesting one is here:
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2010-02/0457.shtml
Stefan
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 01:30:59PM +0200, Stefan Küng wrote:
> Also, the speed hasn't improved much in the last 8 months. It's
> still 11 times (!!) slower than 1.6.x. Since there was some talk
> about having 1.7 finished for devs to test it this fall - well, I
> think you can guess my concerns her
On 18.06.2010 11:15, Stefan Sperling wrote:
There is a background story here.
Stefan Küng has repeatedly been complaining about wc-ng.
Not complaining about wc-ng, but about the performance of it. That's a
big difference.
His perception seems to be that wc-ng will ultimately hurt Tortoise
But I need that information for all entries in the tree. So I have to
traverse the whole tree again.
Tree walks are expensive.
That is totally ridiculous. No. You do NOT have to walk the tree again.
The idea is: the status callback is invoked with the *limited* status
information. If you want
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:25:24AM +0100, Becker, Thomas wrote:
> Greg,
>
> I'm an outsider to the Subversion development community so you may be
> surprised by me jumping into this discussion. But as you were shouting to the
> public you should expect this.
>
> I'm shocked about the tone of yo
om
Torex Retail Solutions GmbH, Salzufer 8, D-10587 Berlin
T: +49 (0)30 49901-0 F: +49 (0)30 49901-139 www.torex.de
> -Ursprüngliche Nachricht-
> Von: Greg Stein [mailto:gst...@gmail.com]
> Gesendet: Freitag, 18. Juni 2010 06:47
> An: Stefan Küng
> Cc: dev@subversion.apac
e any other nodes then the one you
>> specify.
>
> But I need that information for all entries in the tree. So I have to
> traverse the whole tree again.
> Tree walks are expensive.
That is totally ridiculous. No. You do NOT have to walk the tree again.
The idea is: the status call
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:35 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Stefan Küng wrote:
>> So for me, 1.7 doesn't look like an improvement at all, no matter how
>> great WC-NG will get. There aren't any new features in it (yet) which I
>> haven't already used in 1.6, but I have to drop more and more existi
On 17.06.2010 22:35, Bert Huijben wrote:
Sure, I said before I can get any information myself, but only with
a severe performance hit. Because every time I call an svn_client_*
API, it walks the whole tree again, opens the files again, opens
the db again and again, ...
svn_client doesn't open
Stefan Küng wrote:
> So for me, 1.7 doesn't look like an improvement at all, no matter how
> great WC-NG will get. There aren't any new features in it (yet) which I
> haven't already used in 1.6, but I have to drop more and more existing
> features.
>
> And from your comments I get the impression
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Küng [mailto:tortoise...@gmail.com]
> Sent: donderdag 17 juni 2010 22:28
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: 'C. Michael Pilato'; 'Subversion Development'
> Subject: Re: status information
>
> On 17.06.2010 22:08,
On 17.06.2010 22:08, Bert Huijben wrote:
May I suggest an approach that doesn't force me to find expensive
workarounds for more and more missing information the svn APIs
return: Use a mask parameter which specifies which members of a
returned struct get filled in by the API and which ones are no
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Küng [mailto:tortoise...@gmail.com]
> Sent: donderdag 17 juni 2010 20:55
> To: C. Michael Pilato
> Cc: Bert Huijben; 'Subversion Development'
> Subject: Re: status information
>
> On 17.06.2010 17:52, C. Michael Pi
On 17.06.2010 17:52, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
Bert Huijben wrote:
Most simple clients can just use svn_client_status5() and trust the results
to be complete like they were used to, but more advanced clients can use
svn_wc_walk_status() to get higher performance.
E.g. If TortoiseSVN or AnkhSVN s
Bert Huijben wrote:
> Most simple clients can just use svn_client_status5() and trust the results
> to be complete like they were used to, but more advanced clients can use
> svn_wc_walk_status() to get higher performance.
>
> E.g. If TortoiseSVN or AnkhSVN switched to the wc apis, they can just
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 11:49, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Stefan Küng [mailto:tortoise...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: woensdag 16 juni 2010 22:14
>> To: Bert Huijben; Subversion Development
>> Subject: Re: status information
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Küng [mailto:tortoise...@gmail.com]
> Sent: woensdag 16 juni 2010 22:14
> To: Bert Huijben; Subversion Development
> Subject: Re: status information
>
> On 16.06.2010 21:40, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
> > The plan is to remo
On 16.06.2010 21:40, Bert Huijben wrote:
The plan is to remove even more expensive members from svn_wc_status3_t, to
make it just return cheap information. (I think working_size is available,
so we can add that specific one; but the scan if the file has been modified
on disk will be removed).
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Küng [mailto:tortoise...@gmail.com]
> Sent: woensdag 16 juni 2010 21:29
> To: Subversion Development
> Subject: status information
>
> Hi,
>
> Since the svn_wc_status3_t struct is now missing the entry member, a
> l
Hi,
Since the svn_wc_status3_t struct is now missing the entry member, a lot
of information previously available from a status call is missing.
I can work around a lot of that information using other svn API calls,
but there's at least two pieces of info I'd really have back in a status
call:
32 matches
Mail list logo
