On Tue, Nov 14, 2000 at 07:54:11PM +0100, Branko Cibej wrote:
> Bruce Korb wrote:
> > The boolean is anticipatory.
> > *When* svn becomes a shell :), certain commands will need to run
> > in the parent process (e.g. "exit" and "cd"), while nearly all
> > others will run in a subprocess (so they can exit with failure
> > without killing the main loop).
> I'd like to stomp on this one before it happens.
> There exist systems where "fork" doesn't exist -- e.g., it's gruesomly
> expensive and inconvenient to implement. Is the only for creating a
> subprocess so that you can write "exit(1)" instead of "return 1"? If so,
> please consider doing without subprocesses.
+1 on that!
And I'd say torch items that are "anticipatory". If it won't be implemented
for SVN 1.0, then it probably shouldn't be in there. Sure... structural
organizations with a forward-looking view are great. But data structures,
variables, etc are just asking for maintenance and development hassles if
they don't apply to 1.0.
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:14 2006