C. Michael Pilato wrote on Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 22:22:20 -0500:
> On 01/04/2013 05:44 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 05:29:30PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> >>"--cl=none" -- introduces a reserved changelist name "none" that
> >> someone, somewhere
On 01/04/2013 05:44 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 05:29:30PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>"--cl=none" -- introduces a reserved changelist name "none" that
>> someone, somewhere might already be really using.
>
> Is this really a problem?
>
> We're
On 06.01.2013 03:01, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> Hey there,
Thanks for taking time to do the measurements, Stefan!
> So, I did some measurement based with a mirror of the boost repository.
> That is a 82,362 revs, 971,599 changes repository mainly containing
> source code. It is surprising how much
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 9:36 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann
> wrote:
> > So, we can passively support it for a while from now on and even
> > properly maintain it (bug fixes) without the expectation of that
> > being too costly.
>
> I think that the costs o
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote on Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 22:32:14 +0100:
> > One thing I /don't/ know is what percentage of the Subversion installed
> > base (in both number of repositories and repository size) falls to BDB.
> > Does anyone have any idea ab
Hey there,
So, I did some measurement based with a mirror of the boost repository.
That is a 82,362 revs, 971,599 changes repository mainly containing
source code. It is surprising how much BDB has fallen behind.
Tests were run on 64 bit Ubuntu 12.10 with BDB 5.1. Repository configs,
created wi
Branko Čibej wrote on Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 22:32:14 +0100:
> One thing I /don't/ know is what percentage of the Subversion installed
> base (in both number of repositories and repository size) falls to BDB.
> Does anyone have any idea about that?
I think it'd be a good idea to poll users@, althoug
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> This quoting is insufficient, it's still prone to SQL injections. Since
> this is a problem every user of this script would have to solve, how
> about having the script ensure that $FILE doesn't contain "'"?
>
> Perhaps make this configurabl
On 05.01.2013 21:36, Ben Reser wrote:
> Unless of course 1.9 comes faster than other versions have.
:)
I probably should've written "1 year" and "2 years" instead of "1.9" and
"1.10" then.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej
Director of Subversion | WANdisco | www.wandisco.com
On 05.01.2013 11:35, Philip Martin wrote:
> Branko Čibej writes:
>
>> * The BDB backend is an order of magnitude slower on trunk than FSFS
>> o timing parallel "make check" on my 4x4-core i7+ssd mac:
>> + FSFS: real 7m33.213s, user 19m8.075s, sys 10m54.739s
>> + BDB: re
+1
-Hyrum
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:53 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> +1! -- justin
> On Jan 5, 2013 10:40 AM, "Greg Stein" wrote:
>
>> Is "+1" too short of a response?
>>
>> :-)
>> On Jan 4, 2013 7:35 PM, "Branko Čibej" wrote:
>>
>>> For the following reasons
>>>
>>>- FSFS has been the
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 12:36 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> I think that the costs of continuing to have it around is probably
> higher than you're thinking. This is someone we all spend time on
> having BDB around, dealing with build system support for it, and
> ultimately running the tests before relea
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 7:10 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann
wrote:
> So, we can passively support it for a while from now on and even
> properly maintain it (bug fixes) without the expectation of that
> being too costly.
I think that the costs of continuing to have it around is probably
higher than you're th
On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Declare the BDB backend deprecated in 1.8, adding appropriate warnings when
> it's used or manipulated (to svnadmin?)
>
> Stop supporting it (including bug fixes) in 1.9
>
> Completely remove the BDB-related code in 1.10 (I'm making an assumpti
Wow. I'm probably going to use that on svn.a.o. However..
bre...@apache.org wrote on Sat, Jan 05, 2013 at 08:36:14 -:
> +# The command option is the command to run, this command will be run via
> +# the shell of your platform. Your command will have variable replacement
> +# made on it prio
Overlaying the result of 'make doc-api' _in trunk_ on top of our
website's docs/api/1.7 directory yields:
% svn st | grep -v ^M | sort --based-on-filename | sort
! bc_s.png
! closed.png
! group__svn__hash__getters.html
! jquery.js
! nav_f.png
! nav_h.png
!
+1! -- justin
On Jan 5, 2013 10:40 AM, "Greg Stein" wrote:
> Is "+1" too short of a response?
>
> :-)
> On Jan 4, 2013 7:35 PM, "Branko Čibej" wrote:
>
>> For the following reasons
>>
>>- FSFS has been the default filesystem backend for almost 7 years,
>>since 1.2.
>>
>> - Looking
Is "+1" too short of a response?
:-)
On Jan 4, 2013 7:35 PM, "Branko Čibej" wrote:
> For the following reasons
>
>- FSFS has been the default filesystem backend for almost 7 years,
>since 1.2.
>
> - Looking at commit history, I've not seen a single (functional or
>performance) i
On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 2:34 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> For the following reasons
>
>- FSFS has been the default filesystem backend for almost 7 years,
>since 1.2.
>
> That only makes it feasible but is not a reason in itself to
not support other backends as well.
>
>-
>- Looking
Branko Čibej writes:
> * The BDB backend is an order of magnitude slower on trunk than FSFS
> o timing parallel "make check" on my 4x4-core i7+ssd mac:
> + FSFS: real 7m33.213s, user 19m8.075s, sys 10m54.739s
> + BDB: real 35m17.766s, user 15m28.395s, sys 11m58.824s
I
What impact does this have on the generated filenames?
Bert Huijben (Cell phone)
From: bre...@apache.org
Sent: 5-1-2013 5:49
To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
Subject: svn propchange: r1429201 - svn:log
Author: breser
Revision: 1429201
Modified property: svn:log
Modified: svn:log at Sat Jan 5 04
21 matches
Mail list logo
