Greg Hudson wrote:
>On Mon, 2002-03-18 at 11:49, Karl Fogel wrote:
>
>>>In other words, if a directory is marked "dirty", then when we send
>>>our update state-report to the server, we enumerate *all* immediate
>>>children in the report, just like CVS does all the time.
>>>
>>>I like this solution -- it's much simpler to implement and maintain.
>>>Feels cleaner to me.
>>>
>>I like it too!
>>
>
>Just for the record, it doesn't feel cleaner to me, although it may be
>simpler to implement. It means we have two completely separate
>mechanisms for tracking the state of mixed working directories. I'm not
>even 100% convinced that the new method is entirely correct, though I
>can't think of any screw cases which mess it up. It was a whole lot
>easier to see that the old method was correct.
>
>So, -0 here, but I think there were enough +1s to overrule me.
>
Well, -1 from me then. Sure, this makes the client simpler -- at the
expense of making the server more complicated. Never a good thing to do,
imho.
--
Brane Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 18 22:29:59 2002