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

Re: Mike Pilato, a question for you

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com>
Date: Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:44:31 -0400

"Rui, Guo" <timmyguo_at_mail.ustc.edu.cn> writes:
> I am now convinced that it is just a server magic: the server will send the
> modification up to the degree constrained by "requested_depth" while the
> reported "wc_depth" (the wc_dir in my original post was just a typo) is only
> used as a reference to determine whether the full content or just the delta is
> needed. The 'depth_is_sticky' is relevant because if the depth is not to be
> updated, we just don't need the content of those does not exist in the wc.
> This is okay because we have another filter to filter out the redundant
> information. But since the server support svn_depth_exclude now, we can makes
> it work better by explicitly exclude the unneeded path upon report. This is a
> potential performance issue similar to issue 2918 but with a different cause.
> The above is more a deduction than the result of carefully analysing the
> server code. So, again, correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually, what you're saying makes sense to me. If the path is excluded
on the client side, then the server shouldn't send any data for it.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-07-02 22:45:28 CEST

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.