On Thursday 23 June 2005 20:25, John Szakmeister wrote:
[snip]
> >
> > Thanks, I was able to verify this on my Linux box as well (except it
> > grew to nearly 80MB). I made a couple of quick patches and it seemed
> > to stop at around 12.5MB. I'm running through the test suite and
> > such right now. But since this is in working copy code (which is
> > notoriously complex), I'll post it a patch on dev@ list later
> > tonight. Hopefully, we can get this in for the next release (but no
> > guarantees as 1.2.1 is right around the corner).
>
> Here's the patch I was using. I'm posting here to the dev@ list in
> hopes that someone with a little more knowledge behind the merge
> operation can see if this is acceptable. From what I can tell, a
> number of operations were using the pool in the merge baton, but they
> didn't need that long of a lifetime. So I switched them to using the
> subpool instead. It passes 'make check'.
Whoops! I forgot to attach the patch (Thanks David). Here it is.
-John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jun 24 11:39:13 2005