Julian Foad wrote on Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 06:52:48 +0000: > Daniel Shahaf wrote: > >Julian Foad wrote: > >> exploration was enough to show that an initial release based on the > >> original approach has possibilities of being improved, incrementally, in > >> that way, as and when resources permit. > >> > >> In other words I am not recommending choosing one approach and > >> abandoning the other, but starting with one and postponing the other as > >> possible future improvement work. > > > >Sorry, but could you spell out what are the "one approach" and "the > >other"? Are you proposing to release the code as it is, fetching in > >advance, and saying you're confident it can in the future be taught to > >fetch during the operation, notwithstanding kotkov@'s points about > >RA-level timeouts? > Yes; while uncertain how much effort it might require to overcome the > concerns such as RA-level timeouts.
Sounds good. Also, unrelated: have we verified that all the temporary files we create are created in a crash-safe way? I.e., that if libsvn_wc is SIGKILL'd partway through hydrating something, the something will be cleaned up by libsvn_wc at some point in the future? Cheers, Daniel
