[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Change #6

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2001-03-30 01:52:00 CEST

Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> It always has been. That is part of why I came up with this change. Also,
> the change is needed so that we can use sendfile() to efficiently deliver
> content to the server. And to let the network layer determine the right
> format for the delivery. And to assist with properly setting the
> Content-Type when talking to the server.
>
> etc etc.
>
> I didn't say that I agree the change should be punted. Just that I will work
> around the problem for now.
>
> My comment still stands: I can see a need/use for this change. The counter
> point seems to be theoretical. So, what is the problem with doing the
> change?

+1

That is to say, +1 on not punting the change, and on discussing it
further, and probably +1 on finding a way to make it happen.

(I'm not sure how theoretical the editor composition objection is
right now; there's *plenty* of editor composition happening in
Subversion right now, and it's only a matter of time before some of
those composees start reading from streams -- for example, in commit
guards. However, I can see various possible workarounds for that; it
may not be a showstopper.)

The real issue at the moment [which I think Ben mentioned, but I
didn't] is that the change is a huge one, so it would be nice to get
M2 done first and then deal with it, that's all.

We'll all talk about it more in person next week.

-K
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:26 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.