<Moved to users_at_subversion.tigris.org>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Phippard [mailto:markphip_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, 9 September 2008 11:36 AM
> To: Daniel Becroft
> Cc: dev_at_subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: Unexpected Merge Behaviour
> On Sun, Sep 7, 2008 at 7:05 PM, Daniel Becroft
> <Daniel.Becroft_at_supercorp.com.au> wrote:
> > Apologies for posting on the developer list. I have posted
> this on the
> > users@ originally, but did not get any explanation. I
> thought I would
> > go to the 'source' (no pun intended), to try and get an explanation.
> You should really just re-raise the issue on users@ then.
Apologies, Mark. I have redirected this reply to the users@ list.
> > =============================================
> > I have only recently started playing around with SVN's merge
> > capabilities, and have found something strange (SVN 1.5.2
> on Windows XP).
> > I have checked-out a fresh, unmodified copy of a branch in
> the repository.
> > The structure is similar to this:
> > \alpha
> > \A
> > \B
> > \C.txt
> > \beta
> > ...
> > \gamma
> > ...
> > I am attempting to cherry-pick a single revision from trunk
> and apply
> > it to said working copy. The revision (r1234) only modifies
> a single
> > file (C.txt above), but when I run the following command:
> > svn merge -c 1234 svn://localhost/repo/trunk .
> > the svn process appears to be reading EVERY file in the
> working copy,
> > including those located under the \beta and \gamma
> directories. As a
> > result, the merge takes approximately 3 minutes to
> complete. (I used
> > sysinternal's FileMonitor utility to determine this). When
> the working
> > copy contains upwards of 12,000 files, this can extremely slow.
> This is the normal behavior. It has to scan the mergeinfo of
> the WC before the merge to communicate to the server what you
> have so that the server knows what deltas to send.
> > This performance does not sound so bad, but when using the
> > revisions' option for the -C command, like so:
> > svn merge -C 1234,1236,1239,1255 svn://localhost/repo/trunk .
> > it takes approximate 3 minutes PER REVISION - it seems to do a loop
> > through the revisions and do the same thing for each.
> Yes, that is exactly how it works. The syntax is
> convenience, the behavior is no different than executing
> three commands.
Okay, thanks. I guess that explains why the --dry-run command is
unreliable when using the revision list.
> > However, I have found that if I structure the merge command
> such that
> > the merge is being done on the subdirectory, then the problem is
> > minimized (all files under alpha/A/B are read, but not
> /beta or /gamma).
> > svn merge -c 1234 svn://localhost/repo/trunk/alpha/A/B
> > Using either version of the merge command, the only
> > that are modified are the parent directory, and C.txt.
> As you say, the behavior is the same, but by focusing the
> tree you are just narrowing down the part it needs to look
> at. It is worth pointing out though that this will create
> the mergeinfo at that part of the tree, which is exactly the
> sort of situation the original scan has to look for. I am
> not saying that you should not use this as your technique.
> But the point is that if you did it this way one time, and
> another time you used the root URL you would still expect the
> merge to work. So it has to determine what is in your
> working copy and what revisions have been merged to the
> various subtrees.
Thanks, Mark, this makes perfect sense. I guess I just expected the
process to be more like this:
A) Obtain a list of the files changes in r1234 (similar to svn diff -c
- Returns alpha\A\B\C.txt
B) Scan the working copy to determine if these files require merging.
- Would scan the C.txt file and parent directories only.
C) Communicate to the server to obtain the delta.
- Get delta required for C.txt.
It seems that the merge process (at the moment) jumps straight to Step
B, and in my case, scans far more than is necessary.
Unfortunately, it does have an extra round-trip to consider. My
situation is probably rare, and that adding the extra server call would
actually hurt the performance, rather than improve it.
> The good news is that this is an area that could see huge
> benefits from a working copy rewrite. There is no need to
> scan the tree, just to get all the mergeinfo for the tree.
> If this could all be retrieved from a single central location
> the overhead of doing this would be fairly minimal. It just
> so happens that in the current working copy design it is very
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-09-09 07:01:53 CEST