Jack Repenning <jrepenning@collab.net> writes:
> At 4:30 PM -0600 11/4/03, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> >
> >I know of no reason why a user would have *more* problems to
> >deal with, even if 'svnadmin tunefs' is called as frequently as during
> >a post-commit hook.
>
> OK, the lock management strategy appears to be safe (or "correctness
> preserving under this transformation").
>
> What about the queue management for things needing deltification, in
> case it's run less often, and the queue builds up enough that the next
> scheduled run starts before the last completes? Manage that (I'm sure
> you can, you're such a clever boy!), and I'll feel better.
Actually, I'm not interested in solving that problem right now. We
have a *known issue* with in-process deltification. We can solve that
issue essentially for free -- no apparent tradeoff penalties except
for forcing repository admins to do a little extra work (which, by the
way, can also be interpreted as *empowering* admins with the ability
to tune deltification to their needs).
We have no data to back this queue concept as a necessity. Therefore,
this late in the game, we either a) need to acquire that data from a
reliable source (so we can address a real issue instead of a ghost of
one), or b) stop wasting precious time theorizing about potential
problems and fix the ones we *know* to exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 5 04:18:16 2003