That's "RFC" as in "Request For Consensus" :-).
Discussion seems to have died down, and that may be because people
mostly agree on the way to go now. So, I'd like to get consensus on
A new RA method, svn_ra_get_log_message_template(), that takes a
list of paths and returns the log message template. On the server
side, this is implemented by invoking a new 'log-message-template'
hook, which takes the author as an an argument and a
newline-separated list of (UTF8) paths on stdin. Whatever the hook
prints to stdout is the log message template. If it prints
nothing, or there is no hook, then there is no log message template
and the client behaves as it does today.
The RA method is invoked only when interactive $EDITOR is used to
write a log message.
(Whether the RA method takes a static list of paths, or receives
them via repeated callback invocations, is something we will have
to work out; but this does not affect the overall proposal.)
The server would know the author because of the RA layer's
authentication; the client would not have to pass the author name
We will ship with a default 'log-message-template.tmpl' file that
just ignores the paths and prints a standard-looking template to
stdout. But the .tmpl file would document the hook's calling
discipline fully, of course.
Obviously, there are some details to be worked out here, but this is
well-specified enough to ask for consensus on the general approach.
The strongest objections so far came from Brane, I believe, and have
been responded to on-list, so I won't repeat the details here. Brane,
I'm certainly not demanding that you give consensus against your
wishes. However, I think it's better not to pull out the "veto" card
in your second message :-)...
> Besides, suddenly you'd have an extra trip over the network
> regardless of whether you use log templates or not, and I'm very
> close to vetoing the proposal for that reason alone.
Please, let's reserve talk of vetos for after technical discussion has
failed to lead to a resolution. I realize that formally it doesn't
matter when one starts mentioning vetos; however, it raises the stakes
prematurely and can have a polarizing effect on the conversation
(although I think it didn't in this case, fortunately).
Again, that's a comment about style, not substance. Feel free to
withold consensus now, and we'll continue discussing if so.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Thu May 19 00:26:14 2005