SteveKing wrote:
[snip]
> 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
>
A while ago I actually went through and changed the notification
mechanism to use a struct (the mails are on the list somewhere with
discussion from Philip) -- it really isn't very hard and is not called
from that many places (a dozenish, IIRC). Adding the 'union of structs'
concept would be more work, but not that much. I still plan on doing
that when I get some free time, but I'm not sure when that will be, and
it wasn't pressing since it wasn't really a problem -- just an api
convenience at the time.
DJ
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
whom they are addressed. If you have received this email
in error please notify the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been
swept by MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 12 20:41:32 2003