On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 20:49, Justin Erenkrantz <justin_at_erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 4:11 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think we have to get this work done soon. We cannot release with
>> performance like it is. How do we define the scope of the work that
>> needs to be done so that we can divide and conquer and get these
>> changes in place?
>
> It sounds like we should codify what our performance targets are.
>
> Is it acceptable if 1.7 is as fast as 1.6? Should it be faster?
I think 1.7 should be faster on large working copies. I've got many
complaints from users when svn status takes minutes using svn 1.6.x.
And they're asking when svn 1.7 will be released with improvements of
svn status performance.
> Could we accept a slowdown for 1.7 as long as we know how we can get
> it on par (or faster) for 1.8?
>
> What are the operations (and test cases?) that are important to us? -- justin
>
IMHO: svn status and svn update.
--
Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2011-03-12 19:25:00 CET