Julian Foad wrote on Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 10:40:59 +0000: > On Mon, 2010-11-29, Danny Trebbien wrote: > [...] > > My conclusion from all of this is that regardless of the value of > > `repair`, my changes do not appear to decrease the performance of > > svn_subst_translate_string() as long as svn_subst_translate_string2() > > is called directly. > > Hi Danny. (I notice you changed your email "From" name to "Danny".) > > Statistics was never my strength so I'll just look to your conclusion. > It sounds like it doesn't need any optimization, certainly nothing > major. Therefore we should definitely make the functional change first. > > I just looked back at the previous emails and had a chat with Daniel > Sh., and he agrees.
It would be more accurate to say that I don't know yet whether I agree or not, since I haven't had the chance to digest dtrebbien's t-test results yet. > Would you like to re-post your patch, when you're ready, without any > of this optimization but with any other changes that are still needed? > +1. (I don't need to be convinced myself of the statistics to be convinced that having the patch proceed without the optimization is the way to go here.) > Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > As I don't recall (m)any other issues with the patch, I think it's > > a short distance from resolving this issue to committing the patch. > > Yup, a short distance now. But once there, Danny has another patch in the pipeline...
