On Wed, Jul 02, 2008 at 04:44:31PM -0400, Karl Fogel wrote:
> "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.
Good. I'll try to fix this problem later.
Rui
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-07-03 04:40:23 CEST