Re: Status of wc-propcaching branch
From: Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU>
Date: 2005-11-28 17:44:50 CET
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 16:57 +0100, Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> My only concern is that the entries file will grow even bigger, but that
I'm also concerned that listing all existing properties might be
1. (Current) Declare the presence of three hardcoded properties.
2. Declare the presence and absence of three hardcoded properties.
3. Declare once per entries file which properties we are caching the
4. Declare the presence of all properties.
Any of (2)-(4) would allow us to start caching the presence of
(2) has the disadvantage that every entry pays a penalty for every
I like (3), but maybe it's too much code for the benefit.
(4) isn't bad from a total space perspective. Storing each property
(1) wouldn't be the end of the world. It would be a little clunky if we
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
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.