On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 19:15, Blair Zajac <blair_at_orcaware.com> wrote:
> On 04/18/2012 03:45 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> Yup, I understood. Sorry that I wasn't clear: I meant in our
>> serialization code, shouldn't we use the "proper" functions rather
>> than raw sha1 digests? Is there any way to switch to them at a
>> higher/semantic level?
>> I haven't looked at that stuff, but I'm going to guess repositories
>> now exist with raw sha1 digests. Is there a format type in there? Can
>> we start writing "csum" and svn_checksum_serialize() into the skel?
>> And then read raw md5, raw sha1, or a serialized checksum?
> I'm not familiar with this part of the code either (not having looked at the
> svn_skel.h before) but that make sense. The code could look for a raw
> digest or a $name$ and then use that.
> It doesn't look like it would be too hard. Because the skel has a len, if
> it's equal to APR_SHA1_DIGESTSIZE then you would use the raw digest,
> otherwise use svn_checksum_deserialize().
> Sounds like a 1.8 repository upgrade though, since once you wrote a $sha1$
> style string, older Subversion's wouldn't parse it directly.
Oh. Good point!
> I won't be taking this on, I've still got a memory lifetime issue I'm
> debugging and then a svn commit thread pool to write to support 4
> commits/sec from remote clients that are consuming all threads from our RPC
> thread pool and killing readers.
hehe... that'll take you what... an hour? ;-)
Received on 2012-04-19 01:46:28 CEST