Hi Stefan, Stefan Fuhrmann writes: > >I enabled it, but there's still some issue: > >subversion/svnadmin/main.c:1892: undefined reference to > >`svn_fs_get_cache_config' > > > It builds here. Did you run autogen.sh before ./configure?
Yep, I did. I tried it several times again; same issue. Is the build.conf broken? > >>For the MD5 stuff, try r986459 (performance branch). > >>It should eliminate 1 of the 3 MD5 calculations. > >Why doesn't STATUS document this and everything else consistently? > > > Because there is no simple mapping rev->feature / improvement. > In particular, there are a number of intermediate steps that were > replaced by new code later on. There is no point in reviewing > these earlier revisions but the newer ones can't be reviewed and > merged on their own. Hence the integration branch for the first > major change. Ah, I saw that. > As soon as a larger number of patches got reviewed and merged, > I will prepare further changes for integration. So far, nobody had > free cycles to do the reviews. I'm being stretched really thin myself- I sometimes have to sacrifice several hours of sleep to keep up :| I'll try my best but I can't promise. Also, there's the additional overhead of having to wait for approvals- if I can't pull it off, I'll request a full committer to take over. > >I had the chance to check them out and apply them just now. They work > >as expected. I'll submit some (uneducated) patch reviews to the list > >and request a merge. I don't have access to the areas your patches > >touch. > I really appreciate that. It would be great if someone had the time > to review the 3 commits to the membuffer cache integration branch. > The review should not require too much context knowledge. An > in-depth review will take a full day or so (like for an average sized > C++ class). Thanks for the estimate- Instead of jumping between classes and attempting to review it bit-by-bit, I'll try to allocate a Saturday or Sunday to this task. -- Ram