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

Re: [PATCH] extend svn_subst_translate_string() to record whether re-encoding and/or line ending translation were performed (v. 2)

From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:06:06 +0200

Re-reading my original review comment, I think it sounds more requiring
than I intended it to be. My fault.

Also, this thread (and in particular Danny's last mail) nicely demonstrate
another aspect of our patch submission process: namely, that patch reviews
are nothing but the start of a discussion about the point they highlight,
and it's fine and healthy to present a disagreeing opinion upon receiving
a patch review.

Daniel

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. 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?
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks.
>
> - Julian
>
>
Received on 2010-11-30 14:08:08 CET

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