Daniel Berlin wrote:
> On 9/18/07, C. Michael Pilato <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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:
>> 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!"
Well, we have a mechanism for this now -- the blame callback receiver needs
only to return SVN_ERR_CEASE_INVOCATION as a code for "stop calling me!".
Whether or not it's cool to just drop the server connection is not something
I can answer. But the various RA layers can, if they wish, choose to
perform this operation in chunks, requesting batches of, say, 20 revisions
at a time, and checking for a request to cease callback invocation between
C. Michael Pilato <email@example.com>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Tue Sep 18 18:46:09 2007