On 28.01.2011 05:27, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Stefan Sperling<stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 11:25:59PM +0100, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>>> Hi @all,
>>>
>>> I'm planning to merge said branch Monday 7th.
>>> Speak now or forever hold your peace.
>>>
>>> Rationale:
>>>
>>> I've been testing / using that code for a while now
>>> and am reasonably confident that it works. And it
>>> is not exactly rocket science, either.
>>>
>>> Because a large portion of my other performance
>>> work builds upon that low-latency caching feature,
>>> it would really like to see it being merged. Directly
>>> after the merge, I will make the feature strictly opt-in
>>> instead of defaulting to a 16 or 64 MB cache.
>> I'd say merging to trunk is perfectly fine if you're confident that
>> there aren't any roadblock issues and it's not enabled by default anyway.
>> We've released optional new features in the past (e.g. libsvn_serf).
>> It's much more likely to get tested this way :)
> It won't get tested very much if it's disabled (made "opt-in")
> directly after being merged back to trunk. :)
>
> I'd say merge to trunk, leave it enabled, and *if* we see some big
> problems, we can throw the kill switch prior to shipping. It's trunk,
> for goodness' sake, it doesn't have to be pristine.
>
> My $.02,
> -Hyrum
Merge is done and everything got adapted
to support both server types equally. The new
caching code is active by default.
BTW, how / where do we document things like
the new mod_dav_svn module parameter?
-- Stefan^2.
Received on 2011-02-06 21:23:05 CET