On Friday 24 June 2005 05:33, John Szakmeister wrote:
> On Thursday 23 June 2005 20:25, John Szakmeister wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > > Thanks, I was able to verify this on my Linux box as well (except
> > > it grew to nearly 80MB). I made a couple of quick patches and it
> > > seemed to stop at around 12.5MB. I'm running through the test
> > > suite and such right now. But since this is in working copy code
> > > (which is notoriously complex), I'll post it a patch on dev@ list
> > > later tonight. Hopefully, we can get this in for the next release
> > > (but no guarantees as 1.2.1 is right around the corner).
> >
> > Here's the patch I was using. I'm posting here to the dev@ list in
> > hopes that someone with a little more knowledge behind the merge
> > operation can see if this is acceptable. From what I can tell, a
> > number of operations were using the pool in the merge baton, but they
> > didn't need that long of a lifetime. So I switched them to using the
> > subpool instead. It passes 'make check'.
>
> Whoops! I forgot to attach the patch (Thanks David). Here it is.
I committed this patch in r15233 on trunk/.
-John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Jul 3 01:46:46 2005