On 11.02.2011 11:10, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 03:51, Stefan Fuhrmann<eqfox_at_web.de> wrote:
>> On 10.02.2011 22:15, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 03:25, Stefan Fuhrmann
>>> <stefanfuhrmann_at_alice-dsl.de> wrote:
>>>> Hi there,
>>>> Those among you following the commits will have noticed
>>>> that I opened 5 new branches each containing a cherry-
>>>> picked patch set from the performance branch (details below).
>>>> These branches can be merged independent of each other and
>>>> an integration branch will be merged to /trunk on the 19th
>>>> or 20th if
>>>> * there was no feedback to it at all (= silent acceptance), or
>>>> * it received positive feedback (= +1 on merge), or
>>>> * issues found have been resolved
>>>> So, an easy way to prevent a particular branch to be merged
>>>> is a simple "needs more discussion / review" post.
>>> I reviewed some of branches. See my comments below.
>> Thank you very much!
>>>> -- Stefan^2.
>>>> List of integration branches:
>>>> - relatively simple change that mainly speeds up ra_svn clients
>>> This branch merges with many conflicts. And after it seems to merge
>>> changes to zlib code...
>> That is weird. It should be just one version changing 3
>> files (none of which is a zlib change -- only reducing
>> the string copying overhead when de-compressing using zlib).
>> It merges just fine against HEAD -- for me at least using
>> near-head SVN as well as 1.5.4. Maybe, it fails for 1.6.x
>> as per http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3657.
> I've tried again and still get text-conflicts when merging using
> Subversion 1.6.15:
>> svn merge --reintegrate "^/subversion/branches/integrate-string-improvements" --non-interactive
> --- Merging differences between repository URLs into '.':
> U subversion\libsvn_subr\svn_string.c
> CU subversion\include\svn_string.h
> U subversion\libsvn_delta\svndiff.c
> U .
> Summary of conflicts:
> Text conflicts: 1
I decided to not merge the change for 1.7.
It is a client-side optimization that will only
become relevant once you go beyond 1Gb
If someone would show up and do a review
of the patch, I may change my decision.
Received on 2011-02-21 07:59:07 CET