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

RE: svn commit: r1073366 - in /subversion/trunk: notes/wc-ng/pristine-store subversion/libsvn_wc/wc-queries.sql subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db_pristine.c

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Tue, 1 Mar 2011 14:53:10 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Foad [mailto:julian.foad_at_wandisco.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 1 maart 2011 14:34
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: 'Branko ─îibej'; 'Subversion Development'
> Subject: RE: svn commit: r1073366 - in /subversion/trunk: notes/wc-
> ng/pristine-store subversion/libsvn_wc/wc-queries.sql
> subversion/libsvn_wc/wc_db_pristine.c

> I'm not clear exactly what problem we would avoid by eliminating the
> "select a unique name" step of this process. Is it what I describe
> below at the end of note [1] - that a scanner might be more likely to
> re-scan the content, and therefore more likely to cause a delay?

No, the problem I try to avoid is
* you create a file
<virus scanner opens the file to verify that it is not a virus>
* you delete the file (after the virusscanner releases the file)
* you rename a file to be at the old location

While we really need something like
* rename to a unique name.
<virusscanner ignores the file, because it was already scanned at the original location>

Received on 2011-03-01 14:53:44 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.