Re: [PATCH 0/2] allow git-svn fetching to work using serf

[Kyle McKay <mackyle@gmail.com>]

On Jul 6, 2013, at 17:28, Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> David Rothenberger wrote:
>> On 7/5/2013 8:41 PM, Kyle McKay wrote:
>
>>> Daniel Shahaf has suggested also setting
>>> "servers:global:http-bulk-updates=on".
>>
>> I have a patch that does this, but since turning on bulk updates has
>> a possible performance penalty, I prefer your approach.
>
> I assume that's because http-bulk-updates defeats caching.  If so,
> makes sense.
>
> Please forgive my ignorance: is there a bug filed about ra_serf's
> misbehavior here?  Is it eventually going to be fixed and this is
> just a workaround, or is the growth in temp file use something we'd
> live with permanently?

Apparently it will not be fixed:

Begin forwarded message:
> From: David Rothenberger <daveroth@acm.org>
> Date: July 5, 2013 16:14:12 PDT
> To: git@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: git-svn "Temp file with moniker 'svn_delta' already in  
> use" and skelta mode
>
> I traced git-svn and discovered that the error is due to a known
> problem in the SVN APIs. ra_serf does not drive the delta editor in
> a depth-first manner as required by the API [1]. Instead, the calls
> come in this order:
>
> 1. open_root
> 2. open_directory
> 3. add_file
> 4. apply_textdelta
> 5. add_file
> 6. apply_textdelta
>
> This is a known issue [2] and one that the Subversion folks have
> elected not to fix [3].
>
> [1]
> http://subversion.apache.org/docs/api/latest/structsvn__delta__editor__t.html#details
> [2] http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2932
> [3] http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3831

The summary of [3] which is marked RESOLVED,FIXED is "Add errata / 
release note noise around ra_serf's editor drive violations".

Kyle