Just to follow up on this some more:
On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 01:04:49PM -0500, B. W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>
> Robert <robertLinux@gmx.de> writes:
> > Hello.
> > Having Target Milestone Post 1-0 is too far off.
> >
> > I have some spare time, so I would offer myself to write the patch.
>
> Best of luck. But I want to give you fair warning: It's a HELLUVA lot
> more work that you might think it is at first glance. libsvn_wc is the
> messiest codebase in svn, it consumes its own API, and you're going to
> have to write a bunch of testcases for your new code. On top of that,
> it still might not get approved for 1.0 (I'm not saying that *I* won't
> reject it, but just be aware that development here is consensus-based).
As fitz says here - this isn't just "a patch" in order for this to Do
The Right Thing - opaque collections are going to be tricky to get
right even without libsvn_wc getting in the way.
I keep driving by this now that I've got a few free cycles, and I keep
rolling up the windows and locking the doors every time. The running
dialog with myself goes something like this:
"OK, I'll need to start here, and change this to move this directory
over here, but now I'll need to tell libsvn_wc that what it's looking
for is over *there* instead of over *here* and so I'll have to change
*this thing here* and that means changing all the call sites over
there and...
Hey wait. I'll do something easier. Like a root canal on myself with a
cordless screwdriver and a pipe cleaner."
I really want this for my own nefarious purposes, but figuring out
libsvn_wc without breaking things I don't have time for right now.
*sigh*
.chris
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 7 22:32:10 2003