n Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 2:03 PM, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
> On 29 December 2014 at 17:39, Stefan Fuhrmann
> <stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:46 PM, Evgeny Kotkov <
> > wrote:
> >> Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan2_at_apache.org> writes:
> >> libsvn_fs-1.dll!get_node_revision_body()
> >> libsvn_fs-1.dll!svn_fs_fs__dag_get_node()
> >> libsvn_fs-1.dll!open_path()
> >> libsvn_fs-1.dll!svn_fs_fs__node_id()
> >> libsvn_fs-1.dll!svn_fs_fs__check_path()
> >> mod_dav_svn.so!prep_regular()
> >> mod_dav_svn.so!get_resource()
> >> mod_dav.so!dav_get_resource()
> >> mod_dav.so!dav_method_get()
> >> ...
> >> Given the above, I am -1 on doing this. Please revert this change and
> >> other
> >> related changes that were supposed to fix the problem.
> > I will keep the added sub-pools in place for now. The problems
> > they cause now will always occur when we move code to the
> > two-pool paradigm. The DAG cache issue is simply the trigger
> > to tighten our pool usage in FSFS.
> Do I understand correctly that you're basically going to ignore this veto?
No. I had simply hoped that my explanations would give
you or Evgeny pause to actually review the changes and
find the spot where the wrong pool was used - something
like the one that r1648272 fixed. If that could not be found
within a few days, I had of course reverted the changes.
But apparently no review is going to happen.
Back to old bad normal in r1648532.
Received on 2014-12-30 15:31:23 CET