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

Re: svn_client_upgrade and speed

From: Listman <listman_at_burble.net>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 08:37:39 +0200

I beg to disagree.. here's a few examples:

1) performance is horrid with large working copies


2) svnsync is broken


3) tree-conflict performance is still a long from the equiv Perforce


4) http implementation is painfully slow and not an option for large


anything else?

On Sep 12, 2009, at 11:52 PM- Sep 12, 2009, David Glasser wrote:

> At the end of the day, "rewrite the client" is basically the only
> interesting feature left worth adding to Subversion. The Subversion
> server is basically finished; it works fine, and has reached the end
> of its extensibility. People looking for exciting new models and
> functionality for version control should probably look at other
> systems. Rewriting the client to be less fragile is a solid goal, and
> that's what Greg and Hyrum are working on... but if it takes three
> years and there are no other svn releases in the meantime, I don't see
> what the problem is. Subversion, nearly a decade in, is pretty stable
> and basically works.
> --dave
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 11:30 PM, Listman <listman_at_burble.net> wrote:
>> On Sep 12, 2009, at 3:18 AM- Sep 12, 2009, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> As stsp notes, this is an artifact of continuing to use multiple
>>> sqlite databases. Shoot ... we still haven't integrated the multiple
>>> property files into the databases. That represents a *TON* more I/O
>>> then our target implementation.
>>> Yes, you reported it a while back, and we were just as aware of it
>>> at that time as now. This is a fuckton of work. If you want it
>>> sooner than we are going, then jump in and help. I think you're
>>> underestimating the work here, and the amount that has and is being
>>> done. Speaking for myself, your comment makes my work feel
>>> unappreciated.
>> Everyone here appreciates the work you're doing, thats a given. The
>> issue is that we're trying to plan life/work/dinner etc and the 1.7
>> schedule is just getting pushed out on a never-ending basis.
>> We talked about this in February of this year.
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=1183455
>> In this discussion we'd asked the dev-team to get some performance
>> improvements into 1.6 rather than pushing them out to 1.7. You told
>> us
>> to wait until 1.7 and life will be peachy
>> and then you said this:
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2373285
>> and now todays discussion..
>> Is the 1.7 release going to be even worse than the nightmare that was
>> 1.5?
>> My prediction from February '09 holds, if we get a *useable* 1.7
>> release by February 2010 I'll be (pleasantly) surprised
>> Again, I'm not trying to beat anyone up here, this is an open source
>> project and we appreciate the work. But we're all big boys/girls here
>> and if you make *very* strong statements as you did back in Feb and
>> then bail someone is going to mention it.
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2393801
> --
> glasser_at_davidglasser.net | langtonlabs.org | flickr.com/photos/
> glasser/
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2394123

Received on 2009-09-13 08:37:58 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.