Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> 1. There is no demand for such a facility right now. The constant
> term in the number of network turnarounds per large-grain operation
> (commit, update, etc.) is not a performance drag, as long as that term
> stays reasonably small.
>
> 2. If there ever is a demand for such a facility, it may not be
> limited to new operations, and certainly may not be limited to
> server-to-client configuration queries or to operations which can be
> satisfied with hook scripts. What if I have a hundred paths I want to
> check using check_path? Right now I have to wait for a network
> turnaround between each path.
>
> It is wrong to create a complicated mechanism in anticipation of a
> demand that may very well never materialize. (Can anyone name a single
> other server configuration query we might want to perform at commit
> time?) And we should not let the possibility of this particular demand
> prevent us from adding new RA queries, because this nebulous future
> requirement may have bearing on queries we already have.
I hate capitulating so easily, because then no one will believe that I
was ever serious about the proposal :-). But, you're right. If we
later find that number of turnarounds per some operation is a problem,
then we can add this mechanism then. The wait-for-servers-to-upgrade
penalty seems small compared with the simplicity gain now.
So, I withdraw back to the original proposal: a log-message-template
hook, and an RA method to talk to it.
(By the way, some people were calling that "Karl's idea", but Brian
Fitzpatrick had the idea, not me.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed May 18 17:47:38 2005