Re: Change #6

On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 05:52:00PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
>...
> 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.

Sure.

> (I'm not sure how theoretical the editor composition objection is
> right now;

It is until you come up with something :-)

> 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.

"commit guard" ? And "a matter of time" isn't very persuasive. Yes, we do
composition, but none of them manipulate data in any way. They are simply
tracking what is happening. Thus, I don't see an obvious towards data
manipulation.

> However, I can see various possible workarounds for that; it
> may not be a showstopper.)

As I mentioned to Ben just now, it is relatively straightforward to have a
forked stream.

> 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.

Agreed, and why I said that I'll find a workaround. And that workaround is
to buffer the whole file into memory before delivery.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/