[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [RFC] Reverse blame

From: Daniel Berlin <dberlin_at_dberlin.org>
Date: 2007-09-18 16:50:09 CEST

On 9/18/07, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net> wrote:
> Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> > I've started to get down the road of having a generic ancestry walker,
> > and I'm starting to realize how idiotic our blame implementation is. By
> > having to wait for svn_repos_get_file_revs2() count up all the revisions
> > on the server and then send them to the client, we wait a lot of time
> > and resources. The ancestry walker lends itself to sending file
> > revisions in a streamy way, as they are found, youngest to oldest.
> > This, in turn, leads toward a youngest->oldest blame implementation,
> > instead of our current oldest->youngest implementation.
> >
> > I'll like to propose that we resurrect Dan Berlin's old reverse blame
> > patch, found here:
> > http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2005-03/1036.shtml
>
> If there are no compat issues (or we've addressed them suitably), and
> performance gains to be had, need we even discuss this? +1.

I don't remember whether I ever solved the issue of simply closing the
connection when we finished, instead of telling the server "you don't
think we are done, but we're done here!"

(This can happen because you can blame all the code before you hit the
end of the revisions, unlike forward blame, where you *have* to get
all the revisions before you can produce an answer)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Sep 18 16:50:35 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.