Re: RFC: Change "revert" behaviour

On Mon, Nov 29, 2004 at 11:41:32AM -0500, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 11:29, Greg Stein wrote:
> > > If we do want a paranoid-comparison flag at all (do we?), there's no reason
> > > for it not to be common to *all* subcommands which crawl a WC.
> >
> > Make paranoid the default. We always want to choose safe defaults. If
> > somebody wants a bit more speed at the cost of "not [necessarily] as
> > safe", then they can use a flag.
>
> So you're suggesting every Subversion operation which crawls a WC should
> read every byte in the working copy, just to be safe?

Don't be antagonistic, please. I was speaking in reference to revert.
Not other commands.

> We're not talking about "a bit more speed" here. We're talking about
> the difference between acceptable and unacceptable performance for a
> moderately-sized working copy.

Euh. I know that. And I'm saying that I believe the default should be
safe, even at the cost of being a bit slow. If the user knows the
funky edge cases are not present, then they can pass a switch to speed
up the operation [at the cost of possibly missing things to revert].

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org