I do like elegant solutions of course, but my current knowledge with
the api and the internals only allows me to solve things this way at
this moment.
About this patch for 'svn up', I don't think it's uglier than the already
existing get_actual_target, as commetted by philip, it reads the entry
and discards it, and it's likely to be opened again immediately afterward.
but the patch it solves the problem, IMHO it's reasonable to move from
ugly A to ugly B, then clean C after all, if people do want to see the
addressed issue fixed, especially when it's about users' experience.
But I do respect the decision of the project team.
And for sure, I'll continue to dig deeper with the internals to try make
things cleaner. :)
Cheers,
CLK
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 09:10:20AM -0500, cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
> > I don't like it, it all looks a bit ad-hoc. Do other people think we
> > should be applying patches like this? The patches probably work (I
> > haven't tried them) and so solve the problem Chia-liang Kao is having.
> > It's just that if the locking is going to be changed I'd prefer code
> > that is "more elegant", for some value of "elegant".
>
> I'm certainly opposed to this patch doing things this way, but I'm not
> sufficiently horrified to lump this nice volunteer's work into the
> "patches like this" Category o' Doom. :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jul 14 17:11:51 2003