Re-reading my original review comment, I think it sounds more requiring
than I intended it to be. My fault.
Also, this thread (and in particular Danny's last mail) nicely demonstrate
another aspect of our patch submission process: namely, that patch reviews
are nothing but the start of a discussion about the point they highlight,
and it's fine and healthy to present a disagreeing opinion upon receiving
a patch review.
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. 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?
> 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.
> - Julian
Received on 2010-11-30 14:08:08 CET