subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kyle Leber <kyle.le...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: svn merge operation extremely slow
Date Wed, 05 Oct 2011 20:24:33 GMT
On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 9:55 AM, Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Stefan Sperling <stsp@elego.de> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2011 at 02:59:25PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:35 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Oct 3, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Kyle Leber <kyle.leber@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> I set the mime-type to "application/octet-stream" in the working copy
> prior
> >> >> to merge and this fixed the problem.  No more heavy CPU usage or
> excessive
> >> >> time spent on the file.
> >> >
> >> > I'm glad it helped. Apart from the performance, it's important that
> >> > svn does this merge the "binary way", because as you said line-based
> >> > merges are not correct for this file.
> >>
> >> It may also interest you (and other readers of this thread) that there
> >> is an open enhancement request for making text-merges take the same
> >> shortcut as binary-merges (if mine == merge-left then set merged :=
> >> merge-right), to avoid expensive diffing [1]. But that hasn't been
> >> addressed yet.
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4009 : Big
> >> trivial text files merged MUCH slower than binary - pls optimize.
> >>
> >
> > I think we should also file an issue about the problem discussed
> > in this thread. svn should take properties on the left/right side of the
> > merge into account when determining whether to treat a file as binary.
> > I guess it should run the binary merge if any of left, right, or the
> > target are marked as binary.
>
> Yes, maybe you're right. I don't know the specifics / historics of
> this behavior (maybe there is a reason for this?). But on the surface
> it looks like it should indeed do a binary merge if either one of
> left, right or target is marked as binary.
>
> Even if #4009 would be addressed, it would still make a difference in
> the situation where the shortcut-condition (mine == merge-left)
> doesn't hold. In that case, I think the "binary-merge" would always
> flag a conflict (because it can't do a line-based merge). Is that also
> the behavior we want f.i. if only merge-left (or only merge-right)
> were marked as binary, and all the other "players" are marked as text?
> I guess it's the safest thing to do ...
>
> --
> Johan
>

Did someone already file this issue, or do you need me to?  I have never
done this before, but can certainly make an attempt if this is what's
needed.

- Kyle

Mime
View raw message