On Feb 13, 2009, at 9:37 AM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bolstridge, Andrew [mailto:andy.bolstridge_at_intergraph.com]
>> Sent: vrijdag 13 februari 2009 14:44
>> To: users_at_subversion.tigris.org
>> Subject: RE: Speeding up workspace
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Bert Huijben [mailto:rhuijben_at_sharpsvn.net]
>>> Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 8:03 AM
>>> To: Listman
>>> Cc: users_at_subversion.tigris.org
>>> Subject: RE: Speeding up workspace
>>>
>>>
>> Is it possible to get such a fix into 1.6, maybe pushing back the 1.6
>> release a little? This sounds like it's a worthwhile, and relatively
>> safe, update. I'm sure many people would prefer a delay to the
>> release
>> if it contained a significant speedup.
>
> I suggested implementing this fix for 1.6 as the actual
> implementation of a
> stable fix is only a few hours of work (I could have completed this
> a few
> days ago).
>
> The sentiment on the development list (and irc) was however that the
> actual
> fix should wait for 1.7. (Reasoning: Not needed for 1.7 and the
> performance
> is not worse than that of 1.0-1.5.. and that this should be checked
> thoroughly of course).
>
> (See the dev_at_s.t.o archive:
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=113
> 4340 and follow ups)
>
> Bert
Not to mention that doing this would kill any cases where multiple
clients want to access non-overlapping parts of the same working
copy. Because 1.7 is going to use sqlite for the metadata, the
locking should be "built-in" if I understand correctly. That means it
should no longer create one lock file for each file under revision
control.
-Steve
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=1152416
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-02-13 19:34:48 CET