[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: rfc for proposal on solving issue #443

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2005-05-05 15:05:48 CEST

On May 5, 2005, at 5:57 AM, Madan US wrote:
> <D:post-commit-status>POST-COMMIT temp message</D:post-commit-status>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> like that!!!!

D: is the DAV: xml namespace, you're not allowed to invent new DAV:
elements. :-)

But we *can* invent new S:elements. In fact, we just started doing it
in svn 1.2; the client now sends its list of lock-tokens in the MERGE
request inside a new svn: element.

So the only trickiness here is dealing with the protocol compatibility
issues. Obviously, we can make a 1.3 client notice the new element if
the server is new enough to send it. But if we add a new svn: element
to the MERGE response, will older clients get upset and choke on it? I
would try testing a 1.0 and 1.1 client against this idea.

And Branko is right: hooks are always run synchronously; that's why
we so often recommend to users that their post-commit hook run "command
&" on unix or "start command" on windows.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 5 15:07:44 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.