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

Re: serf and sourceforge.net don't get along (was on users@: Re: 1.7.0-alpha1 feedback)

From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 02:30:40 +0300

Bolstridge, Andrew wrote on Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 14:51:37 +0000:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:stsp_at_elego.de]
> > Sent: 21 June 2011 18:27
> > To: Justin Erenkrantz
> > Cc: Greg Stein; Daniel Shahaf; dev_at_subversion.apache.org; OBones; Uwe
> > Schuster
> > Subject: Re: serf and sourceforge.net don't get along (was on users@: Re:
> > 1.7.0-alpha1 feedback)
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:18:24AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:57 AM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > That definitely implies something wrong on the client. If the server
> > > > is slow, then the client should mostly be blocking.
> > > >
> [snip]
> >
> > It's a bit worrying that our new default will require admins to tweak the server
> > config to provide adequate performance for clients in the default
> > configuration.
> >
> > Then again, there's the chicken-and-egg problem. If we don't force people to
> > push for server-side config changes, they're never gonna happen...
> >
> > Though maybe we should wait for one more release cycle before making serf
> > the default, and tell people that to get most out of httpv2 for 1.7 they should
> > make sure their clients use serf and their server config is adjusted
> > accordingly?
>
> Absolutely. The first thing to do is provide serf as a 2nd option,
> make a big song and dance about how great it is, and basically
> advertise the fact that it is there (from a user perspective).

Didn't we do it as early as the 1.4 release notes?
Received on 2011-06-23 01:31:21 CEST

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