Julian Foad wrote on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:40:59 +0000:
> On Mon, 2010-11-29, Danny Trebbien wrote:
> > My conclusion from all of this is that regardless of the value of
> > `repair`, my changes do not appear to decrease the performance of
> > svn_subst_translate_string() as long as svn_subst_translate_string2()
> > is called directly.
> Hi Danny. (I notice you changed your email "From" name to "Danny".)
> Statistics was never my strength so I'll just look to your conclusion.
> It sounds like it doesn't need any optimization, certainly nothing
> major. Therefore we should definitely make the functional change first.
> I just looked back at the previous emails and had a chat with Daniel
> Sh., and he agrees.
It would be more accurate to say that I don't know yet whether I agree
or not, since I haven't had the chance to digest dtrebbien's t-test
> Would you like to re-post your patch, when you're ready, without any
> of this optimization but with any other changes that are still needed?
(I don't need to be convinced myself of the statistics to be convinced
that having the patch proceed without the optimization is the way to go
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > As I don't recall (m)any other issues with the patch, I think it's
> > a short distance from resolving this issue to committing the patch.
> Yup, a short distance now.
But once there, Danny has another patch in the pipeline...
Received on 2010-11-30 13:47:56 CET