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

Re: [PATCH][RESEND] Issue #1295 (take 5)

From: Mark Grosberg <mark_at_nolab.conman.org>
Date: 2003-05-14 05:52:03 CEST

On 13 May 2003 kfogel@collab.net wrote:

> Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
> > >Anybody have a chance to look over my latest patch? Haven't heard anything
> > >back for several days.
> >
> > I remember one relevant comment that you haven't addressed yet (see
> > attached message).
> Well, let's not encourage poor Mark to keep putting time into this
> unless it's really going to get merged in. Right now, we don't have a
> consensus that the feature is even desirable, let alone desirable for
> 1.0.

Here are some things I don't mind doing:

  * Breaking up the patch into two parts - one to add the UNMARKED
    flag to the commit-items list. The other, to the actual command
    line client to make use of them.

    The generic functionality may be useful to other clients as well.

  * Adding a configuration option that the command line client reads
    to determine if this behavior is warranted. This should help
    reduce user confusion if we default it to off. Although, the
    new message is pretty clear (IMHO).

  * Do what Brane suggested and let the truncate routine locate
    the front part of the buffer to avoid having to copy the entire
    buffer twice.

> I hate to say it, but the more I think about it, the less I'd like to
> see it merged in. The possibility for unexpected consequences seems
> awfully high. I don't mean bugs in the code, necessarily, just
> unexpectednesses in the user's experience.

Would a config option make sense in this case or would it be litter?

I guess I personally see this as a desierable feature given my work
habits. So I'm really kind of hoping it goes in.

> I certainly wouldn't veto it, if people feel strongly that it should
> go in. But let's please settle *that* question before continuing the

Can we re-open the issue with voting? Perhaps the originator of the issue
has some input?

> patch review cycle, which could waste Mark's time (and annoy him,
> though he's been awfully forgiving so far).

I save my bad attitude for my job. :-)

Mark G.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed May 14 05:52:53 2003

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.