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

Re: Copies via update -- net win or net loss? (Was: svn commit: r996914 ...)

From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 18:01:57 +0200

C. Michael Pilato wrote on Tue, Sep 14, 2010 at 10:58:20 -0400:
> On 09/14/2010 10:25 AM, rhuijben_at_apache.org wrote:
> > Author: rhuijben
> > Date: Tue Sep 14 14:25:52 2010
> > New Revision: 996914
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=996914&view=rev
> > Log:
> > When mixing the two major hacks of the update editor (copy_from location
> > and file externals), we can get into an unexpected state. Update an
> > assertion to handle this state properly and slightly update the expected
> > test result.
>
> In light of our vision for the future regarding the pristine cache, and the
> seeming flakiness of the special-case code added to handle copies during
> update, should we kill that feature?

Could someone summarize the feature/hack/special-case being discussed
here? Is it about using the copyfrom info to optimize some over-the-wire
transmissions during an update, as opposed to always asking for the fulltext
of a copied file? (e.g., I found locate_copyfrom() in update-editor.c)

Thanks,

Daniel.

> I've never been convinced that it was
> truly beneficial as written anyway -- it seems to just sorta throws "what
> ifs" across the wire and then burdens the client with verification and
> handling before falling back to doing what it has always done for non-copied
> files.
>
> --
> C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
>
Received on 2010-09-15 18:02:48 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.