C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>Julian Foad <julianfoad@btopenworld.com> writes:
>
>
>>Of course it is impossible to sort a stream after it has been
>>generated, while keeping as a stream. Therefore a stream must be
>>produced in sorted order. Sorting a tree just involves sorting each
>>individual directory when it is encountered...
>>
>>
>...This means that it reads a single directory's worth of status items,
>and no more, at a time. Any children of that directory which are
>spoken of in the server stream are handled first, then those that
>remain are handled. To get sortability, you'll have to either know in
>advance all the children that the server is going to speak about
>(bye-bye streaminess), or you have the change the server protocol to
>make the same sort promises, means forcing this arbitrary policy down
>at least as deep as the libsvn_repos library (and perhaps deeper) to
>ensure streaminess.
>
>
As I read Julian's proposal, that is precisely what he's suggesting,
pushing this into the server. And it seems like a quite reasonable
idea, too, though probably not free, as you point out. You would need
to hold not just a single directory at a time, but all the directories
along the current path. Right?
But how bad is that? Seems to me like producing sorted status would be
a good thing in at least two dimensions, user experience and regression
testing. Shouldn't we be having a cost-benefit discussion, rather than
an unthink-that-thought discussion?
Luke
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 13 21:26:13 2003