On Mon, Jan 7, 2013 at 3:44 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 01/06/2013 05:27 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > As Lieven says -- FSFS has been steadily improving while BDB was
> > standing still these last 6 years. IMO, if there were enough users of
> > the BDB back-end to matter, we'd have been given
On 01/06/2013 05:27 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> As Lieven says -- FSFS has been steadily improving while BDB was
> standing still these last 6 years. IMO, if there were enough users of
> the BDB back-end to matter, we'd have been given incentive (through bad
> language on users@ ...) to do more than
1.7.0@1181106 vs. trunk@1429453
Started at Mon Jan 7 00:25:11 UTC 2013
*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.
Charts of t
On 04/01/13 04:07, Ben Reser wrote:
(snip)
Thank you very much for the comments.
A new patch is attached.
Index: publish/docs/community-guide/general.part.html
===
--- publish/docs/community-guide/general.part.html (revision 14295
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote on Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 11:27:09 +0100:
> > On 06.01.2013 10:43, Bert Huijben wrote:
> > > The revprop and revision cache are in fsfs, not the repos layer...
> > >
> > > In what way are you then comparing the backends?
> >
Stefan Sperling wrote on Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 15:37:23 +0100:
> We can also rename it, but that gets a bit ugly because you have to
> consider the case where the changelist you want to rename to also
> exists. I suppose we could try '_none', then '__none', and so on.
Or, in the interest of reversi
On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 09:46:20AM +, Bert Huijben wrote:
> How would an old client that links to the 1.7 level api ‘ask’ a user
> something new during upgrade?
How would such a client be able to upgrade a working copy to the
1.8 format in the first place?
> We should just rename the list to
Branko Čibej wrote on Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 11:27:09 +0100:
> On 06.01.2013 10:43, Bert Huijben wrote:
> > The revprop and revision cache are in fsfs, not the repos layer...
> >
> > In what way are you then comparing the backends?
> >
> > You are now comparing a backend+caching to a backend with
On 06.01.2013 10:43, Bert Huijben wrote:
> The revprop and revision cache are in fsfs, not the repos layer...
>
> In what way are you then comparing the backends?
>
> You are now comparing a backend+caching to a backend without caching.
>
> I’m not against dropping support, but if we do it we
Hi,
On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Bert Huijben wrote:
> The revprop and revision cache are in fsfs, not the repos layer...
>
> In what way are you then comparing the backends?
>
> You are now comparing a backend+caching to a backend without caching.
>
> I’m not against dropping support, but if
How would an old client that links to the 1.7 level api ‘ask’ a user
something new during upgrade?
We should just rename the list to something unique or something... ‘svn’
can ask things, but the api can’t.
(Other new clients can also ask of course, but in general other api users
can’t)
Bert
Sen
The revprop and revision cache are in fsfs, not the repos layer...
In what way are you then comparing the backends?
You are now comparing a backend+caching to a backend without caching.
I’m not against dropping support, but if we do it we should do it for the
right reasons, not by using skewed n
12 matches
Mail list logo
