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

Re: transaction roots

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_newton.ch.collab.net>
Date: 2001-03-30 02:13:18 CEST

Karl Fogel <kfogel@collab.net> writes:

> Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> > Why wait for commit_txn? That occurs *after* all the data has been delivered
> > to the server. On my poor little 56k modem, that could be 15 minutes later.
> > Then, *one* file is out of date, I say "fuck!", update that one file, and
> > recommit the whole bloody thing.
> +1 :-)
> I think this is a case where the filesystem has to have code to make a
> guarantee (the merge guarantee, that commits will error with conflict
> rather than commit against out-of-date data), and ra_dav wants to have
> some very similar code in order to achieve a network optimization.
> Yes, the codes are similar, but each exists for a good reason,
> independent of the other.

But as I mentioned, doesn't it seem odd that one ra layer be
continually calling fs_merge() during a commit, and another ra layer
be companing node-rev-ids during a commit.... both to achieve the
*exact* same network-optimization effect? Why have two different
techniques for this?
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:26 2006

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