Branko ÄŒibej wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
>> Right. Every three months we seem to repeat this thread. :-)
>>
>> X: "How can we make the wc stop crawling huge trees?"
>> Y: "Wc rewrite is happening. There will be less crawling. And we
>> can add 'svn edit' eventually too."
>> X: "How does that work?"
>> Y: "It works like perforce. Thousands of perforce users love it."
>> X: "It sounds awful, I don't want that!"
>> Y: "It's always been planned as *optional* feature, just like changelists are."
>>
>>
>
> IMHO it's unnecessary code bloat. The development time would be better
> spent in optimizing WC scans.
>
Just to illustrate what I mean by "optimizing WC scans" and put some
code where my mouth is ... here's a *very* trivial example. See the
attached script. On my box, the less_stupid scan is consistenly 30-40%
faster (with full caches!) than the stupid one, merely because it tries
to keep accesses slightly more local.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-10-27 08:15:48 CET