This is a "meta request":
I haven't had time yet to carefully look at the lock problems in
libsvn_wc; I've read all of Philip's and Justin's discussion, just
haven't had time to really digest the discussion and inspect the code
for myself. I don't think Ben Collins-Sussman has had time either,
nor has Mike Pilato. This is a pity, because we three probably know
libsvn_wc best and would be the obvious people to review the recent
code changes (diffidence or false humility would be useless here, so
I'm not even going to bother).
So I'd like to request that until Alpha is released, we confine
ourselves to fixing bugs in the current libsvn_wc code, and not try to
make any more forward progress on issue #749. The most recent commits
and patches to libsvn_wc have indeed been for fixing bugs, so my
request is pre-emptive, not reactive :-).
The problem is not that the commits are bad in themselves. It's just
that the most qualified reviewers are temporarily very busy with other
Alpha issues, and these are commits that deserve full attention,
nothing less. Therefore it makes sense to coordinate coding and
review times on this, until Alpha is out.
Thanks,
-Karl
Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> writes:
> This patch implements a parent-child lock relationship. It passes
> the regression tests, including Justin's new one. I'm posting it to
> ask if this is the right way to go. One thing that worries me is the
> memory usage, it's probably trivial at the moment, but if we start to
> cache the entries will it prove to be too expensive?
>
> Since my visitors' baby has stopped crying I'm going to try to get
> some sleep now :)
>
>
> Continuing issue #749. Make svn_wc_adm_access_t optionally
> hierarchical.
>
> Also revert r2504 as it's no longer needed.
>
> [...]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Jul 14 05:46:14 2002