On 19.09.2015 19:20, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 19 September 2015 at 17:24, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
>> On 19 September 2015 at 14:03, Branko Čibej <brane_at_apache.org> wrote:
>>> On 19.09.2015 13:12, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>>> On 18 September 2015 at 12:49, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 05:41:41PM +0200, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>>>>> That branch is complete and ready for merging, but I'm still not sure
>>>>>> whether we should merge it or not.
>>>>> I think we should merge it to trunk now.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think this branch can improve much further unless we start
>>>>> exercising the code ourselves to see how well it's working for us.
>>>>>
>>>>> ANd I believe it's hard to tell whether these changes provide an
>>>>> actual benefit in practice without running the code for a while.
>>>>>
>>>>> I like the debug and profiling functionality.
>>>>> This should make it easy to tune the system going forward.
>>>> Ok. It seems people here generally support 'reuse-ra-session' branch
>>>> concept. So I'm going to merge this branch to trunk and see how it
>>>> will work.
>>> +1
>> Merged to trunk in r1704048.
>>
> The r1704048 broke JavaHL tests.
>
> This happens because JavaHL bindings changes content of AUTH_BATON
> field in svn_client_ctx_t between diferent svn_client_*() invocations.
> While RA session in RA session pool references AUTH_BATON from first
> invocation.
>
> The most interesting question is it allowed by our API or not?
Unfortunately, I'd say it is because none of the API docs say otherwise.
Or at least I can't find any.
> If it's not allowed we just need to fix JavaHL to use the same AUTH_BATON.
I think the most interesting question here is: why is JavaHL doing this
in the first place? I have to confess I've no idea, offhand.
-- Brane
Received on 2015-09-20 00:53:37 CEST