Re: Log Message Templates vs Server->Client Configuration.

On 5/16/05, kfogel@collab.net <kfogel@collab.net> wrote:
> For 1.3, we've been talking as though log message templates
> unquestionably depend on coming up with some sort of generic
> server->client configuration transmission mechanism.

[...]

> A: Yes. Fitz came up with the following brilliant idea. Note how
> it does not involve a generic server->client configuration
> mechanism.

[...]

> First, we just agree to eat the extra network turnaround. The
> idea is that the functionality we would gain would be worth it.
>
> When you do a commit that would pop up an editor, the
> editor-calling function first sends a new request to the server,
> svn_ra_get_log_message_template(paths), meaning: "Here are all
> the paths I'm committing, hand me the appropriate log message
> template please."
>
> On the server side, this causes hooks/log-message-template to be
> invoked. If the hook doesn't exist, then the response that
> comes back to the client just says "no template", and the client
> behaves as it does today.

+1 (yes, I know my vote does not count, but this is the best, IMHO,
solution as it gives the flexibility for all and yet is clean and simple.)

[...]

> I'm comfortable with the extra network turnaround in the above
> proposal, and I like its user-visible behavior. By definition, it
> always does the right thing -- if it didn't, the repository admin
> would fix the hook :-).

Two questions:

1) What happens with old clients and newer servers?
(and the other way around)

2) If this requires only new clients and servers and the extra
network turnaround is a problem, could this somehow be folded
away in the case of no hook? (Again, assuming that is the
best way to improve performance - I am not sure that this is
the performance limit that we think it is)

[...]

> The main thing I wanted to do is separate "Log Message Templates" from
> "Server->Client Config Transmission". One is the feature users
> actually want; the other is *a* way to implement it.

Very much agree - just because something can be done does
not mean it is the right way. The hook just seems like the obvious
solution - it feels "right" for so many reasons. (Again, IMHO)

-- 
Michael Sinz               Technology and Engineering Director/Consultant
"Starting Startups"                          mailto:Michael.Sinz@sinz.org
My place on the web                      http://www.sinz.org/Michael.Sinz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org