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

Re: thoughts?

From: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 21:07:47 -0600

On Feb 13, 2009, at 8:04 PM, Greg Stein wrote:

> [cc'ing list; dev: just a short email to hyrum, but wanted to expand
> audience now]
> It "shouldn't" ... cachable_props is only ever set to
> SVN_WC__CACHABLE_PROPS, and nobody ever attempts to change it.
> Further, in props.c::build_present_props(), it doesn't even *look* at
> cachable_props, but uses the constant instead. If somebody *did*
> happen to change the value, then it wouldn't matter in the least.

In that case, it looks like removing it is better than pretending to
honor any changes a consumer may make to the value. (And I notice
you've done so in r35868.)

> But let's say I introduced a bug... how the heck would I test the
> propcaching performance?

I have no idea.

> On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 18:16, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> Looks okay. How does it affect propcaching performance?
>> On Feb 13, 2009, at 2:11 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> http://paste.lisp.org/display/75405
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1154635

Received on 2009-02-14 04:08:10 CET

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.