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

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

From: Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU>
Date: 2003-08-13 23:00:42 CEST

On Tue, 2003-08-12 at 16:13, SteveKing wrote:
> Thanks for the hint.
> Would it be ok if I try making a patch with such a new callback?
> Or better question: would such a patch have any chance of getting applied?

Well, I continue to believe that we should use different callbacks for
different purposes, rather than using a giant union to shoehorn them all
into one callback. ("We're already shoehorning different things into
one callback" isn't a very compelling justification to keep doing it
that way.) I raised this issue a bit ago and got only a noncommital
response; I think we should resolve it.

So, you can start writing code for either approach, but don't be upset
if the design parameters change one way or the other mid-stream.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Aug 13 23:05:11 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.