On Tue, Apr 16, 2002 at 01:11:10PM -0400, Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> Karl Fogel <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Basically agree with Perry's points, though, bluntness of expression
> > aside.
> I'm not known for sufficient gentleness, I'm afraid. A personal failing.
> I know that a new RA layer is not something to do for 1.0, but what
> I'm looking for (and more or less was looking for from the start) is
> hooks in the client software to make use with ugly tunnel based hacks
> over ssh easier for the end user. Eventually we could talk about a new
> RA when things are further along.
The ra_pipe would actually not be that hard to implement. We already have
the capability of doing the client side operations into an xml file. All that
would be needed is a way to read one of those xml files on stdin, and apply it
over ra_local. Shouldn't actually be much work at all. Basically just a
set of expat handlers which call the ra_local vtable entries with the
appropriate info from the xml file.
For an example of the xml stuff, try doing svn ci --xml-file=foo.xml.
The only other change can think of would be a way to get the new revnum back
over the wire to do the post-commit rev-bumping.
Kevin Pilch-Bisson http://www.pilch-bisson.net
"Historically speaking, the presences of wheels in Unix
has never precluded their reinvention." - Larry Wall
Received on Tue Apr 16 19:57:58 2002
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored