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

Re: [PATCH] Split up the reintegrate merge API: first find what to do, then do it - v2

From: DanielShahaf <danielsh_at_elego.de>
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:01:40 +0200

Julian Foad wrote on Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 21:25:55 +0000:
> I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> >   The svn client reintegrate merge code calls:
> >
> >     svn_client_find_reintegrate_merge(&url1, &rev1, &url2, &rev2, ...);
> >     svn_client_merge4(url1, rev1, url2, rev2, ...);
> One issue is that there is some duplication of work in this
> formulation.  Both of these functions check that the target WC is
> suitable for merging into.  Both open up RA sessions.  Both determine
> the youngest common ancestor.
> It looks like the amount of work duplicated is fairly constant,
> suggesting it would not affect large merges very much, but I have yet
> to measure this.

I don't think "opening an RA session" is a problem for a function that's
about to do a merge operation :)

Checking the WC's sanity, presumably that's necessary since the WC may
be modified after svn_client_find_reintegrate_merge() but before
svn_client_merge4()? Especially if the user is prompted to +1 the
output of svn_client_find_reintegrate_merge() before the actual merge
is done. (and then goes to lunch, comes back, makes some commits, finds
a loose TSVN dialog and OKs it)

> We could avoid any or all of this duplication at the cost of making
> the API more complex, for example by exposing a cut-down merge
> function that only does part of what svn_client_merge4() does.  The
> 'svn_client_do_reintegrate_merge' that I showed in the previous
> version of this patch was one such option.  That was so cut-down that
> it was perhaps only suitable for doing a reintegrate merge.
> Another way to address part of the issue is to expose the "check that
> the target WC is suitable for merging into" functionality as
> a separate API (like in v1 of this patch), which would be called by
> the client before doing any kind of merge (reintegrate or otherwise)
> instead of making each merge function do that check internally. 
> Another part of the issue could be addressed by pooling and reusing
> the client's RA connections (which is a totally separate project). 
> There are probably other ways of refactoring the merge APIs too.
> I'll think on this a bit more.  I can say though that I'm more
> concerned with the large-scale shape of the merge APIs, and I'd
> strongly prefer general solutions such as RA session pooling over
> special-casing the APIs.
> - Julian
Received on 2011-12-12 07:02:25 CET

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