Karl Fogel <kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net> writes:
> Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:
> > Rather than put energy into restricting what hooks can do, I'd rather
> > improve our post-commit reporting so that the wc *can* receive
> > unexpected changes after commit.
>
> Yes, so would I. But before 1.0? You've got to be kidding :-).
Hmmm, maybe I've changed my mind:
<pilchie> Yuck! I don't want a commit to modify the code in my working copy.
<pilchie> pre-commit hooks should NOT be able to modify the transaction.
<pilchie> If someone wants a post commit the does something and creates a new rev, that's fine, I'll get it when I update, but I don't want it in the pre-commit.
<pilchie> We went to all this work to split status and update,
<pilchie> and now we're just going to merge commit and update instead.
<pilchie> ?
<sussman> hmmmmm
<sussman> we have a strong argument that commits should not cause updates.
<rassilon> Yeah, I don't like that either. Totally lame.
<sussman> the argument being, a user may only want to send changes, and deliberately not receive changes from other people.
<sussman> but what about changes made by the server?
<pilchie> bad.
<pilchie> yuck.
<sussman> does a user have the right to refuse those too?
<pilchie> get them with update.
<rassilon> very bad, and very yucky
* pilchie goes to get a coffee.
<sussman> ok, then a post-commit hook makes more sense I guess.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jan 10 23:47:31 2003