From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 24 03:56:55 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 880C67FC for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 03:56:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from markiyan.kushnir@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ea0-x234.google.com (mail-ea0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::234]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25FEBA88 for ; Sun, 24 Mar 2013 03:56:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ea0-f180.google.com with SMTP id d10so3608eaj.11 for ; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:56:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=A46bnJZioqv6EQxldE2b1S+YMD0DEeAZGSh+mx0XoWU=; b=XlE/0klmMHAEmk06nxmE9HtOXBGj53UPJMoYi8a2dgfbseG8oLADB29Xlenh925FCP tCXW1fMlWqMcTjRoT836EuebswP84MdqtEGz0Y9oPOQiKiRBl8Smr9Edq3D9f4ANq9Dq fVRmcyMQvxTHNcn+JDnn6UI9k/yAbENgYTV7fpENJ7oflqq51dmGMroh7pXH9yusBdGD xx9pmDU+beOSDgwbg5R7kwWDdaaKlYhbTfsLIRVpXOvv3W+l39NY59yP4Nu9L8awqjfz tqLVPgJChAkXnf1XaTt3Omxj5O/rr2L9UYYewEdiFDgCjUq8EnslVgasILhaIYhcGI9+ kEbw== X-Received: by 10.15.22.76 with SMTP id e52mr11254407eeu.7.1364097414334; Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:56:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mkushnir.zapto.org (61-50-132-95.pool.ukrtel.net. [95.132.50.61]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r4sm11374553eeo.12.2013.03.23.20.56.49 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 23 Mar 2013 20:56:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <514E7927.2010901@gmail.com> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 05:55:19 +0200 From: Markiyan Kushnir User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121119 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? References: <513E2DA5.70200@mac.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 03:56:55 -0000 Hello John, Tested svnup for a while, and I can say it does its job well, and works basically as I would expect, so thanks for your initiative. Although it appears to be quite resource greedy. Most of the time it showed something like: PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE C TIME WCPU COMMAND 22270 mkushnir 1 102 0 44944K 31804K CPU0 1 6:22 97.56% a.out I looked at the source code, and found that it uses svn commands that are known as the "main command set". The program is implemented around get-dir and get-file. I think there is significant room for resource and performance improvement. Have you considered an approach to use what svn folks call the editor command set? I mean acting as a trivial svn client: we might ask the server to drive our checking out or updating. The server will be telling us only diffs. Checking out a full tree would be just another diff, although bigger than usually. We would also benefit from compression on the wire. Another advantage would be to always have consistent repo more-or-less guaranteed by the svn server. I've done some proof of concept recently, and the results look encouraging to me. For example, a do-nothing update really does nothing. A two-or-three revisions update takes a couple of seconds. And a full checkout of the base/stable/9 takes ~7m30s at 530kB/s to me. -- Markiyan. On 14.03.2013 04:30, John Mehr wrote: > > > > On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:50:43 -0400 > "David Magda" wrote: >> On Tue, March 12, 2013 19:32, John Mehr wrote: >>> This sounds good to me, and as long as there's some sort >>> of a consensus that we're not breaking the principle of >>> least surprise, I'm all for it. The one default that may >>> be unexpected is the defaulting to the stable branch -- >>> people who track the security branches will be left out. >>> So maybe something like: >>> >>> svnup --ports >>> svnup --stable >>> svnup --security (or --release) >>> >>> Thoughts? >> >> If svnup will eventually going to be used to update a variety of >> repositories, on a plethora of operating systems, then hard coding the >> above may not be appropriate. Something akin to "svnup --repo={ports, >> stable, security, release}" may be better, and then have a configuration >> file with the settings. > > Hello, > > You're absolutely correct. It looks like someone has already forked the > code on github which seems like pretty solid evidence for taking as > flexible an approach as possible and minimizing the amount of hard coded > data. > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"