I (Julian Foad) wrote on 25 July 2012:
> I can't see the session URL semantics documented where I'm looking for
> it (in svn_ra.h). Would the following doc string update for ra_open4() be an
> improvement?
Committed in r1367794. This doesn't touch on the authz implications which is
the thing
On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 2:50 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
>
> Bert pointed out on IRC that changes like this one (and I have been making
> other similar changes for some time) could potentially have an adverse
> performance effect in some cases, because reparenting an RA session is
> not free. Our IRC
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> Using the attached 'reparenting-monitor.patch' and running
> merge_reintegrate_tests-10, I found that each of the merge
> commands executed in that test performs between 2 and 50 reparentings.
>
> DBG: ... sessions: 3, reparentings: 4 (+ no-ops
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> So... should we revv ra_svn so 1.8 clients/servers can talk to each
>>> other exclusively in repos-root-relative paths?
>>
>> That sounds good to me, but I don't understand the authz impact.
>>
>> In much of the merge code, i
Julian Foad wrote:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 21:31:49 -0400:
>>> For ra_svn: I was totally wrong. This thing always requires network
>>> activity: a "reparent" command/response at best; at worst, the complete
>>> teardown and re-opening of the s
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>C. Michael Pilato wrote on Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 21:31:49 -0400:
>> For ra_svn: I was totally wrong. This thing always requires network
>> activity: a "reparent" command/response at best; at worst, the complete
>> teardown and re-opening of the session. This is just a side-
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 21:31:49 -0400:
> For ra_svn: I was totally wrong. This thing always requires network
> activity: a "reparent" command/response at best; at worst, the complete
> teardown and re-opening of the session. This is just a side-effect of the
> stateful p
On Jul 24, 2012 9:32 PM, "C. Michael Pilato" wrote:
>...
> For ra_serf: I was right again. It's just a string operation when the
> repos root URL is known. But I overestimated how common it was for this
> value to be known. All HTTPv2 servers transmit the repos root URL when
the
> session is i
On 07/24/2012 06:50 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> Bert I just tried to add that a reparent is not a 'free' operation... It is
> still an expensive operation compared to many other operations... But
> compared to opening a new ra session it is still at least 10 times faster.
I was curious about just ho
Bert pointed out on IRC that changes like this one (and I have been making
other similar changes for some time) could potentially have an adverse
performance effect in some cases, because reparenting an RA session is not
free. Our IRC chat [1]:
Bert julianf: I hope you can get rid of those tw
10 matches
Mail list logo
