> On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 09:19:42AM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> >...
> > The working copy commit-crawler needs to commit N targets spread out
> > randomly over a large tree. Because commits are atomic, it describes
> > the commit as *one* large edit to the tree; this means starting the
> > commit from a common "parent" directory and then traversing
> > directories in an intelligent order. The rule we want to follow is:
> > after we leave a directory (go "up"), we want to close the directory.
> > We don't want to have to randomly re-open it again.
>
> That's the idea...
>
> > Thus, the crawler
> > is *already* sorting the targets. As Mike said, right now the targets
> > are being qsorted alphabetically, which guarantees that all children
> > in the same directory will be examined as a group.
>
> Nope. It *isn't* doing that, which is why I posted the question
> in the first
> place. If we were doing a proper traversal, then we wouldn't need to check
> whether a lock had been taken out already. Thus, Mike's change to look for
> an existing lock is merely covering up a deeper issue (that was my worry).
Right. I'd like to take on this one tomorrow (Amsterdam time), if you are
alright with it. It is only a small patch that will get the behaviour of
visiting each directory only once (by adjusting the sorting).
Sander
> Cheers,
> -g
>
> --
> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:37 2006