/home/neels/svnbench/20120213-002441
Started at Mon Feb 13 00:24:41 UTC 2012
*Disclaimer:* this tests only file://-URL access on a GNU/Linux VM.
This is intended to measure changes in performance of the local working
copy layer, *only*. These results are *not* generally true for everyone.
Average
On 12 feb 2012, at 16:59, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 04:47:45PM +0100, Thomas Åkesson wrote:
>> Would it make sense to formalize the different approaches into a
>> couple of RFCs attempting to summarize the respective implications of
>> each approach? I could try to write on
On 12.02.2012 21:52, Branko Čibej wrote:
> The idea is that we'd always maintain the complete index, i.e., in order
> to determine if path@15 exists, one only needs to search the index for
> (path, rev <= 15, !deleted) -- which is trivial in a properly ordered
> index. (Yes, this assumes that we re
On 12.02.2012 17:58, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 13:57:23 +0100:
>> On 12.02.2012 06:27, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 12.02.2012 02:52, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>>>
The silly part of FSFS is that it does not optimize access
paths, yet, but stores chang
Saw the fixes -- looks good, thanks.
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 04:42:08 +0200:
> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 03:06:31 +0100:
> > On 09.02.2012 16:05, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > >stef...@apache.org wrote on Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 00:44:26 -:
> > >>Author: stefan2
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 13:57:23 +0100:
> On 12.02.2012 06:27, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >On 12.02.2012 02:52, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> >
> >>The silly part of FSFS is that it does not optimize access
> >>paths, yet, but stores changes individually. The challenge
> >>is our two-di
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 04:47:45PM +0100, Thomas Åkesson wrote:
> Would it make sense to formalize the different approaches into a
> couple of RFCs attempting to summarize the respective implications of
> each approach? I could try to write one up for the "Non-normalizing
> approach".
Detailed de
On 11 feb 2012, at 13:10, Hiroaki Nakamura wrote:
> Hi,
>
> 2012/2/9 Thomas Åkesson :
>> Hi,
>> I have been interested in this issue for a couple of years and I remember it
>> was discussed briefly at Subconf in Germany a couple of years ago.
>>
>> Branching the thread here because I'd like to
On 08.02.2012 23:08, Paul Burba wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 4:24 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
On 07.02.2012 00:41, Greg Stein wrote:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 18:15, Paul Burba wrote:
Hi All,
There has long been a desire for Subversion to support some form of
inherited properties. Recently, w
On 12.02.2012 06:27, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 12.02.2012 02:52, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
The silly part of FSFS is that it does not optimize access
paths, yet, but stores changes individually. The challenge
is our two-dimensional key space and the fact that different
operations traverse the data al
On 09.02.2012 19:08, Philip Martin wrote:
Peter Samuelson writes:
[Philip Martin]
--- ../src/subversion/libsvn_subr/svn_base64.c (revision 1242045)
+++ ../src/subversion/libsvn_subr/svn_base64.c (working copy)
@@ -410,7 +410,7 @@
/* Resize the stringbuf to make room for the (approximate
11 matches
Mail list logo
