You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com> on 2004/10/31 14:08:31 UTC
Re: [Issue 2112] svn revert is wasting time on unmodified files
> ------- Additional comments from philip@tigris.org Sun Oct 31 07:02:49 -0700 2004 -------
> Look at adm_ops.c:revert_admin_things:1263, the call to svn_wc_text_modified_p.
> The force_comparison flag is deliberately set TRUE which means that a full-text
> comparison is done, which is slower than just checking timestamps. I assume
> this is done so that reverts work even if the timestamps are "wrong".
Wouldn't it be faster to just revert the file, instead of doing a full
byte-for-byte comparison first, if the initial checks are
inconclusive?
bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [Issue 2112] svn revert is wasting time on unmodified files
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Philip Martin <ph...@codematters.co.uk> writes:
> Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com> writes:
> >> ------- Additional comments from philip@tigris.org Sun Oct 31 07:02:49 -0700 2004 -------
> >> Look at adm_ops.c:revert_admin_things:1263, the call to
> >> svn_wc_text_modified_p. The force_comparison flag is deliberately
> >> set TRUE which means that a full-text comparison is done, which is
> >> slower than just checking timestamps. I assume this is done so
> >> that reverts work even if the timestamps are "wrong".
> >
> > Wouldn't it be faster to just revert the file, instead of doing a full
> > byte-for-byte comparison first, if the initial checks are
> > inconclusive?
>
> It's probably not a good idea to modify working copy files if we don't
> have too. It breaks hard links for example.
And another reason: it causes people's editors to needlessly prompt
them asking "File on disk has changed, really edit the buffer?" (or
whatever), which is annoying :-).
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: [Issue 2112] svn revert is wasting time on unmodified files
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@codematters.co.uk>.
Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> ------- Additional comments from philip@tigris.org Sun Oct 31 07:02:49 -0700 2004 -------
>> Look at adm_ops.c:revert_admin_things:1263, the call to
>> svn_wc_text_modified_p. The force_comparison flag is deliberately
>> set TRUE which means that a full-text comparison is done, which is
>> slower than just checking timestamps. I assume this is done so
>> that reverts work even if the timestamps are "wrong".
>
> Wouldn't it be faster to just revert the file, instead of doing a full
> byte-for-byte comparison first, if the initial checks are
> inconclusive?
It's probably not a good idea to modify working copy files if we don't
have too. It breaks hard links for example.
--
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org