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

Re: Case study: Mono switches to Subversion

From: Vincent Lefevre <vincent+svn_at_vinc17.org>
Date: 2004-11-18 17:17:07 CET

On 2004-11-17 11:16:38 -0600, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> In svn 1.0, 'blame' was about 100x slower than CVS. In svn 1.1, it's
> about 10x slower. I really can't think of any way to make it faster,
> other than doing what CVS does: keeping a cache of contextual diffs on
> the server, so the server can instantly generate annotation. We
> should probably start a different thread on this, to discuss (A) if we
> want to open an issue for this, (B) if/how we want to prioritize this
> enhancement at all.

Even with my personal repository, I use "svn blame" from time to
time. So, it would really be a good thing if it were faster.

> It's not clear to me if all the developers feel this way, and if not,
> it seems odd that two developers would force 400 other people to do
> extra work maintaining duplicate data in a file -- just so that they
> don't have to remember to run 'svn log > Changelog' before they unplug
> their network. (They already run 'svn up' before disconnecting,
> right?)

This is not the only problem. One may want to run "svn log" in
a subdirectory or on a file. Remotely, "svn log" takes time to
initiatiate the ssh connection. And even locally, "svn log" is
quite slow. A cache would be very useful IMHO.

Vincent Lefèvre <vincent_at_vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Nov 18 17:17:29 2004

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.