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

Re: cache crawler refactor thougths

From: Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:37:16 +0200

On 22.09.2009 13:36, Gunnar Dalsnes wrote:
>> On 20.09.2009 22:44, Gunnar Dalsnes wrote:
>>>> I remember now how the two queues differ: the one filled by
>>>> the directory watcher is used to fetch the status in a forced
>>>> way, while the other queue is used to crawl less extensive.
>>> I see.
>>>> Think about a local property modification: if you revert that
>>>> modification, neither .svn\entries nor .svn\dir-prop-base will
>>>> change...
>>> True... But if we in addition process changes inside .svn\props,
>>> then we should have all changes of interest?
>> That would work, but unfortunately it doesn't :) The problem here
>> is that the file .svn\props doesn't always exist. It isn't created
>> automatically, only if there actually are properties. And if the
>> properties get removed, the file can vanish again. So how would you
>> compare the file dates if the file doesn't exist?
> I don't say we should. If a file in .svn\props folder is added,
> removed or changed, we should, as today, invalidate (and then ask
> for) status of parent folder (self).
> With "process changes" I mean added to the crawler queue(s) in the
> first place. How the crawler deals with the changes would be much
> like today, but the improvement would be to have much less changed
> queued.

You're of course free to give it a try :)


   oo  // \\      "De Chelonian Mobile"
  (_,\/ \_/ \     TortoiseSVN
    \ \_/_\_/>    The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
    /_/   \_\     http://tortoisesvn.net
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [dev-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-09-23 20:37:20 CEST

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.