[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: Madan US <madan_at_collab.net>
Date: 2005-05-05 15:56:20 CEST

On Thu, 2005-05-05 at 18:35, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On May 5, 2005, at 5:57 AM, Madan US wrote:
> D: is the DAV: xml namespace, you're not allowed to invent new DAV:
> elements. :-)
Cool... I didnt realize that! thanks.
> But we *can* invent new S:elements.
I will do that

> 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.\
IMHO, XML would take care of that X = eXtensible... so extra elements
should not choke the existing applications ( in this case - svn client )
> 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 15:58:50 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.