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

Re: [PATCH] Speed up svn:externals updates by using an internal "svn switch" rather than a straight delete.

From: Ross Mark <rossm_at_controllingedge.com.au>
Date: 2005-01-05 00:25:08 CET

Philip Martin wrote:

>Ross Mark <rossm@controllingedge.com.au> writes:
>>- SVN_ERR (svn_client__checkout_internal (NULL, new_item->url, path,
>>- &(new_item->revision),
>>- &(new_item->revision),
>>- TRUE, /* recurse */
>>- ib->timestamp_sleep,
>>- ib->ctx, ib->pool));
>>+ /* Try doing a switch first */
>>+ err = svn_client_switch (NULL,
>>+ path,
>>+ new_item->url,
>>+ &(new_item->revision),
>>+ TRUE,
>>+ ib->ctx,
>>+ ib->pool);
>Notice that while __checkout_internal() is used instead of _checkout()
>the new code uses _switch() directly. That means that there will be a
>svn_sleep_for_timestamps() for each external, and one of the reasons
>__checkout_internal() was created was to avoid exactly that problem.
>It looks like a __switch_internal() is needed.
I was just about to submit a new patch that uses the subpool and avoids
the locking problems, good thing those regression tests take awhile to
run. Is it worth submitting the patch as is knowing there will be an
extra delay or should I include in the patch your suggested change for

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 5 00:25:24 2005

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.