Re: request for comments from developers about issues 1004 and 901

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ben Collins-Sussman" <sussman@collab.net>
> >
> > I just wanted a new callback so that existing code doesn't need
> > to be changed.
>
> In other words, you want to do the least amount of work. :-)

No, really not!

> But IMO, that's not a very compelling argument against Philip's
> suggestion. I think the notification function could be vastly
> improved by folding in the functionality you want. Yes, it's more
> work, but it results in better overall code design.

But I know that patches which change a lot
of code are as good as no patch at all right now (they won't
get applied). AFAIK the policy is to _not_ include such
patches before 1.0 so that possible new bugs can't get in.

So I wanted an approach which has the least chance of
introducing new bugs. That way I might have a tiny chance
of getting this feature before the end of this decade.

Also, I'm not sure how such a "union of structs" would look
like as Philip Martin suggested.

Stefan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 12 18:52:25 2003