On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> As I recall, Stefan recently declared the performance branch "done".
>> It's encouraging to see a few intrepid users and devs looking at the
>> branch and providing feedback.
>>
>> Through IRC and other conversations, I've gotten the feeling that some
>> of the changes made on the branch might be a bit too wide-spread to
>> warrant whole-sale inclusion in 1.7, but several people have expressed
>> interested in cherry picking at least some bits back to trunk. I've
>> not yet done a comprehensive review of the changes on the branch, and
>> would appreciate any suggestions folks may have of low-hanging,
>> independent useful bits.
>>
>> For starters, I would consider:
>> * the new svn_io_file_read_full2() API
>> * the new svn_io_file_putc() API
>> * the new svn_stringbuf_appendbyte() API
>>
>> Note that I don't include the caching work, since I think it might be
>> much more far-reaching, and probably needs more review before going
>> into trunk.
>>
>> The branch should also probably have a catch-up merge to prevent it
>> from diverging too far. I'm happy to do so, as well as fix up any
>> style nits which may exist on the branch. I'll do some digging to
>> determine the various revision ranges to make the above suggestions
>> merge to trunk, and post back.
>
> Hearing nothing, I'll at least bring the branch up-to-date with trunk,
> and then go through the logs to find the relevant revisions for the
> above bits.
I've identified the first set of revisions: r985014, r985669, and
r987893. These make more complete use of the svn_ctype_is* functions
throughout the code base.
On a more general note, I'm planning on reviewing the revisions and
then committing the merge (assuming all tests pass). I invite folks
to review the various commit mails (which will hopefully be relatively
small).
-Hyrum
Received on 2010-09-08 20:25:07 CEST