Justin Erenkrantz wrote on Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 06:20:41 -0400: > On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:11 AM, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > But more to the point: anybody have a solution in mind? If it's not > > Windows-only then some Windows defines wont help of course. Buffering > > the output may be the only way to eliminate this bottleneck? What are > > the pros and cons, and how hard would that be? Any other ideas? > > You *could* change the notification system to emit in batches rather > than print a line per-item as invoked. But, that might not be worth > it...from a usability perspective, we're likely not going to want to > write to the console in blocks of say 100 if the console screen height > is 25. IIRC, in my analysis on Unix (where which shell you were using > had a noticeable impact), the time it takes to write 25 lines was the > same as writing 1 line
Which _shell_ you were using had an impact? I can see how the terminal emulator in use, the $TERM value, etc would have an impact... but why does the identity of svn's parent process have any effect?
