Re: [PATCH] Issue #1295

On Fri, 9 May 2003, [UTF-8] Branko Čibej wrote:

> Apart from several stylistic nits (such as aligning the function param
> names; we don't do that) and missing docstrings for the new functions,

I'll fix those. Where are the doc strings? I didn't see any as I don't
think I've changed any public interfaces.

> it strikes me that you're complicating things enormously, *and* you
> introduced a quadratic algorithm for tagging the array.

Why?

As for the algorithm on the array, I thought about using a hash. But I
figured that would waste memory. Usually the list of comitted files isn't
that large that it would matter.

But I'll do it and submit another patch and see how it works. Should I
make a subpool for the hash or just use the pool passed in to the log
getter?

> You can make things much simpler by just parsing the list in the log
> file into a hash table keyed off the path (only the existence of the key
> is important), then use lookups into the table to set the UNMARKED flag.

I guess I have to learn how APR hashes work now....

> That way you only need a single traverse throught the array to set all
> flags correctly, and you don't need a reference to the array in
> process_committed_list.

I still think I would need to pass the array.

> By the way, your method for deleting stiff from the array seems wrong;
> you never check the flag on the items you move from the end of the array

I'll change it to use qsort.

L8r,
Mark G.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 9 02:22:45 2003