On Feb 16, 2009, at 2:18 PM- Feb 16, 2009, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> On Feb 13, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Bob Archer wrote:
>>>> I know, wait for 1.7... but I want it all... and I want it NOW!
>>> Patches welcome. :P
>> I thought someone in this thread said he offered a patch to move to a
>> single lock file per folder and was told they didn't want to put it
>> 1.6 and the it would be moot for 1.7?
> (Sorry it took a while to respond...working on 1.6 release stuff.)
> Bert did say he had a patch, and I also would be interested in seeing
> it. However, this late in the 1.6 release cycle, somebody could swoop
> in with a feature which made Subversion use 90% less disk, run 10
> times faster, and boost your bank account by $10 million, and the
> developers still wouldn't accept it. As developers, I'm sure most of
> us here understand the rationale behind such behavior. In this
> circumstance, it's really just a case of unfortunate timing.
> The same problem which Bert claims to fix in his patch will be fixed
> to a greater degree in a more robust way as part of WC-NG, due in
> 1.7. It's *that* work for which I'd welcome patches (and testers, and
> early adopters, etc).
its just a shame that we've had so much push-back from the svn
on the issue of performance (do i need to go and dig up that thread
Hyrum?) and now
when someone identifies a root cause and a possible fix it gets pushed
performance is the MAIN issue with Subversion, with large wc's
is just horrible.. the Perforce folks look at our performance and
laugh, there are
examples of this all over this list..
it seems a little arrogant of the developers to ignore this issue,
concerns count for anything?
Collabnet are paying the salaries of a number of people on the dev
they concerned that Atlassian are kicking their butts because of this
Am I alone here? Hello?
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-02-17 08:07:22 CET