On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 17:48 -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> I must say, though, that I (like Brane) am not thrilled about the idea
> of essentially asking the server, for each commit, to run a
> hook-script to conjure up a bit of text which itself isn't even
> necessarily going to be "used" (as in, outlive the final edits of the
> commit message).
I don't understand; is this objection to the whole idea of a log message
template feature, because the user might choose to ignore the template
when filling out the log message?
> And I'm a little
> disappointed that my idea for having the server simply dictate a
> static template which contains substitable regions was mostly
> overlooked (by all but Brane, it seemed, though that's my fault for
> not expressing the idea as more than a top-of-the-head thought).
I didn't overlook that idea. It came under consideration here:
I like this idea because the hook script can do interesting
things with the list of modified files.
[...]
Any log template mechanism where the server transmits static
data to the client is inherently limited in this respect,
because can't have the server telling the client to execute
code (barring the addition of a sandboxed virtual interpreter to
the client).
Substitutable sections allows us to insert the list of modifiable files,
and perhaps format it in a predefined set of ways, but it will always be
more limited than letting the server run arbitrary code to process it.
A similar argument holds for deciding which log message to use depending
on the path being committed. With static data, we could have the client
decide based on predefined kinds of rules (e.g. something like what CVS
has, with regexp matches), but it's necessarily more powerful to let the
server decide any way it wants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 19 01:19:54 2005