On Oct 29, 2008, at 10:42 AM- Oct 29, 2008, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Listman <listman_at_burble.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 29, 2008, at 5:00 AM- Oct 29, 2008, Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>>> Cool. That would be around my expectation for our performance in
>>> wc-ng: just a quick walk of the tree calling lstat(), looking for
>>> size
>>> changes or timestamp changes.
>>
>>> Also, recall that I had planned to have a mode for 'svn stat' that
>>> only looks at the metadata (adds, removes, etc), but without a
>>> crawl.
>>> I didn't think a simple crawl would be so fast. I think, for now,
>>> that
>>> I'm going to punt on the idea of a no-crawl status mode. No reason
>>> to
>>> monkey up status with Yet Another Command Line Switch when it can go
>>> this fast (and think about the typical case!).
>>>
>>> And think about hot caches! My Macbook can "find . | wc -l" across
>>> 170k files in just 5 seconds.
>>>
>>
>> you can't count on the cache being hot at all. i spend most of my
>> time
>> working on a compute server with several other coworkers, the
>> kernel cache
>> is shared amongst lots of apps, not just svn. i very rarely get
>> lucky with
>> hot cache svn status. this is the norm for all the companies i
>> consult with
>> in the silicon valley area.
>>
>> so greg, will i be able to start testing any of this when the 1.6
>> branch
>> comes along? will most of your changes be in there by then?
>
> The WC rewrite is not part of the 1.6 release. I think in another
> email he suggested that trunk would hopefully start having some of
> these changes in January.
right, its clear 1.6 is way too early for the WC rewrite. I was
referring to this
email from Greg Oct 1st:
> Re-reading your original email...
>
> The new API allows for compressing the text base files. Pretty much
> transparently. So yah... there could be improvements.
>
> But I still maintain that it doesn't matter. 1.6 comes with a lot of
> improvements, and it needs sqlite.
>
> Inside, we start moving towards a maintainable WC library, which
> everybody has wanted for something like three years now. So my opinion
> is pretty much "done deal" unless there is a better way to make some
> steps towards a cleaner WC library.
which i took to mean that the 1.6 release includes sqlite and *some*
improvements.
i'm not trying to pin anyone down, just wondering if i should get
ready for copious
amounts of testing on the 1.6 branch..
thx
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-10-29 19:24:27 CET