Martin Pool wrote:
> I think they're related but not necessarily the same, if it turns out
> we do inefficient rpcs and also have some inefficiency locally.
>
I'm wondering if it wasn't the fact that building the local tree wasn't
batching the requests (instead exporting one-by-one). Which has now been
'fixed' though we still use inefficient rpcs. Which would make this a
dupe of a different bug.
John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Martin Pool wrote:
> I think they're related but not necessarily the same, if it turns out
> we do inefficient rpcs and also have some inefficiency locally.
>
I'm wondering if it wasn't the fact that building the local tree wasn't
batching the requests (instead exporting one-by-one). Which has now been
'fixed' though we still use inefficient rpcs. Which would make this a
dupe of a different bug.
John enigmail. mozdev. org/
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://
iEYEARECAAYFAkx rJNwACgkQJdeBCY SNAAP5mwCfS85Al XLpCLr4iHcgoI6V t3lq /6ZFC5p5aRd3+ 4ujT
xp4Ani8oHtnIbJ9
=nY49
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----