www-infrastructure-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jukka Zitting" <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [scm] Use case: Continuous integration
Date Mon, 03 Mar 2008 12:44:13 GMT

On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 1:25 PM, Steve Loughran <stevel@apache.org> wrote:
> Jukka Zitting wrote:
>  > Feeds are certainly useful, but in this case I don't see how they
>  > differ that much from doing an "svn update". You're right in that
>  > feeds are probably much easier to cache, but it's still basically a
>  > pull operation.
>  The difference is probably the load needed to generate the status. A
>  feed you GET with an etag, and a not-modified response says your REPO is
>  up to date. if you are running http requests from CI servers in a
>  corporate system, the proxy server can cache the response. Now, when the
>  tree has changed, the update still has cost.

I haven't looked at how "svn update" is currently implemented, but
AFAIUI there should be no inherent reason why the operation could not
be as cache-friendly as a feed request.

Optimizing svn update or providing feeds both seem like good ways to
reduce the load generated by pull-based CI systems.

Also, for the record of evaluation push vs. pull models, currently the
entire ASF generates an average of about 15 commits an hour (much more
in peak times). A normal project or codebase probably sees at most a
commit or two per day on average.


Jukka Zitting

View raw message