Re: [Merge request] Merge r985477 from performance branch

2010-10-11 Thread Philip Martin
Branko Čibej writes: > Got into this a bit late, sorry, but I'm not at all happy about this > change. > > If we ignore the issue with long-running SVN processes ... ok, let's > assume that changing umask requires that you restart daemons ... > > I cannot ignore two issues: > > * The default

Re: [Merge request] Merge r985477 from performance branch

2010-10-11 Thread Branko Čibej
Got into this a bit late, sorry, but I'm not at all happy about this change. If we ignore the issue with long-running SVN processes ... ok, let's assume that changing umask requires that you restart daemons ... I cannot ignore two issues: * The default perms will come from the temp director

Re: [Merge request] Merge r985477 from performance branch

2010-10-04 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Hi Julian, Julian Foad writes: > Hi Ram. I wasn't comfortable with giving a +1 for this change just > then, but now I've satisfied myself. The only potential negative impact > I can imagine is if a user has a very long-running instance of > Subversion and is accustomed to Subversion tracking cha

Re: [Merge request] Merge r985477 from performance branch

2010-10-04 Thread Julian Foad
On Sun, 2010-10-03, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > Hi Julian, > > Julian Foad writes: > > Looks good to me. > > > > I wondered if it is safe in a long-running Subversion process, like > > TortoiseSvn or a Linux equivalent. > > > > It seems to me that it won't really matter much in practice. If s

Re: [Merge request] Merge r985477 from performance branch

2010-10-03 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Hi Stefan, Stefan Sperling writes: > > Can I get an explicit +1 to commit this? I just want to get as many of > > Stefan's changes merged in quickly so that there's enough time before > > the 1.7 release to test them. > > > > Technical detail: How do I merge? > > cd svn-trunk-working-copy > svn

Re: [Merge request] Merge r985477 from performance branch

2010-10-03 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Sun, Oct 03, 2010 at 07:02:01PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > Hi Julian, > > Julian Foad writes: > > Looks good to me. > > > > I wondered if it is safe in a long-running Subversion process, like > > TortoiseSvn or a Linux equivalent. > > > > It seems to me that it won't really matter m

Re: [Merge request] Merge r985477 from performance branch

2010-10-03 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Hi Julian, Julian Foad writes: > Looks good to me. > > I wondered if it is safe in a long-running Subversion process, like > TortoiseSvn or a Linux equivalent. > > It seems to me that it won't really matter much in practice. If someone > changes their umask and finds that Subversion carries on

Re: [Merge request] Merge r985477 from performance branch

2010-10-01 Thread Julian Foad
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > I would like to get r985477 merged into trunk. I've applied and used > it successfully and checked that all tests pass. > > Warning: I have no background knowledge. I'm just reviewing the patch > as-it-is, because Stefan asked me to. > > > [[[ > > r985477 | stefan2 |

[Merge request] Merge r985477 from performance branch

2010-10-01 Thread Ramkumar Ramachandra
Hi, I would like to get r985477 merged into trunk. I've applied and used it successfully and checked that all tests pass. Warning: I have no background knowledge. I'm just reviewing the patch as-it-is, because Stefan asked me to. > [[[ > r985477 | stefan2 | 2010-08-14 18:02:04 +0530 (Sat, 14 Aug