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

----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Hudson" <ghudson@MIT.EDU>
>
> 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.

I agree. My first suggestion was a to use an additional callback function
for that.

> 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.

I decided not to start coding on this. Karl mentioned that such a patch
wouldn't have much chance of getting in so I would most likely just
waste my time.

Stefan
 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Aug 13 23:17:09 2003