Re: better status notification

Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:

> One solution might be to reverse the order of the passes. First get
> the network report and start parsing it. As each status structure is
> built, do an immediate local-stat of the object. Now we now it's safe
> to 'notify' the client, because the status structure is complete.
> After these notifications, we do a normal local-only walk, and only
> send notification on structures that are added (if the structure
> already exists, notification must have been sent already.)
>
> Does this solution sound reasonable?

The wc diff editor (i.e. single revision svn diff -rREV) does
something similar, although it does the local check at each
close_directory. Doing the local check only once will affect the
order in which items are displayed, so you may end up with

$ svn st -u
       * foo/bar/baz/zig.c
       * foo/qax1.c
       * foo/qax2.c
       * foo/qax3.c
A foo/bar/baz/zag.c
A foo/qax4.c

rather than the current

$ svn st -u
       * foo/bar/baz/zig.c
A foo/bar/baz/zag.c
       * foo/qax1.c
       * foo/qax2.c
       * foo/qax3.c
A foo/qax4.c

I prefer the current behaviour, but other people may disagree!

-- 
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org