Re: [PATCH] extend svn_subst_translate_string() to record whether re-encoding and/or line ending translation were performed (v. 2)

Julian Foad wrote on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:40:59 +0000:
> On Mon, 2010-11-29, Danny Trebbien wrote:
> [...]
> > My conclusion from all of this is that regardless of the value of
> > `repair`, my changes do not appear to decrease the performance of
> > svn_subst_translate_string() as long as svn_subst_translate_string2()
> > is called directly.
>
> Hi Danny. (I notice you changed your email "From" name to "Danny".)
>
> Statistics was never my strength so I'll just look to your conclusion.
> It sounds like it doesn't need any optimization, certainly nothing
> major. Therefore we should definitely make the functional change first.
>
> I just looked back at the previous emails and had a chat with Daniel
> Sh., and he agrees.

It would be more accurate to say that I don't know yet whether I agree
or not, since I haven't had the chance to digest dtrebbien's t-test
results yet.

> Would you like to re-post your patch, when you're ready, without any
> of this optimization but with any other changes that are still needed?
>

+1.

(I don't need to be convinced myself of the statistics to be convinced
that having the patch proceed without the optimization is the way to go
here.)

> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > As I don't recall (m)any other issues with the patch, I think it's
> > a short distance from resolving this issue to committing the patch.
>
> Yup, a short distance now.

But once there, Danny has another patch in the pipeline...
Received on 2010-11-30 13:47:56 CET