> > data). During the time in which you wait for a new server release, you
> > can then only pray that all your users don't use that broken client
> > anymore - not a very good scenario if you ask me.
>
> Or, you can implement appropriate checking in the pre-commit script.
OK, so this is something I don't understand.
How can you implement appropriate checking in the pre-commit script,
if the pre-commit script doesn't have sufficient information to reason
about it? Wasn't that the whole point of the original request of
SteveKing, before you two got sidetracked into a theoritical
discussion on client/server compatibility?
To put it back to where it was: How can I, as a maintainer of a
Subversion repository, and writer of a pre- and post-commit scripts,
determine whether a particular commit attempt is coming from a user
without the physical ability to adhere to the codebase standards
established on this repository, (in this particular case, the
requirement that all commits are related to issue numbers in the issue
tracking system)?
I can see how it is a good idea to _technically_ provide compatibility
between various clients and servers. I fail to see how it is a good
idea to explicitly forbid breaking compatibily as conscious decision
on part of the server's administrator for _administrative_ reasons.
What is the point of the user agent string anyway?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Jan 8 23:41:11 2005