On 9 September 2014 19:15, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> I'm not in the mood to split hairs right now (those who need to
> know why). I'll just say that I haven't had time to
> review the revprop cache branch, so obviously I can neither
> approve nor veto it. The general approach was
> discussed at the hackathon in Sheffield, and I did agree with that.
Could you please stop putting pressure on other developers when
you haven't actually read the code discussed?
The code is not always as good as you can imagine or expect. And
it is not always as good as you could be told about it.
> Ivan, since you called me out about techical grounds, I'll
> just repeat what I already said: if you have specific objections,
> point them out. Saying "I object!" is just not good enough.
I have technical objections related to the general quality of the
new code. The best way to find out more is to review this code by
yourself! You can use the 'remove-log-addressing' branch to make
the corresponding diff. To help you, I'm attaching patch for
'remove-log-addressing' branch with current log-addressing
implementation. libsvn_fs_fs\index.c is my favorite one :)
Please review the code and put your '+1' if you personally
agree with the overall design and all the significant implementation
details of log-addressing feature.
Once again. It's totally counterproductive to discuss issues related
to the quality and over-complication of code if one of the parties
doesn't know anything about the particular code (excluding the
knowledge about the 'general approach' that is expected to be
followed in the code).
Received on 2014-09-10 16:41:46 CEST