SteveKing <steveking@gmx.ch> wrote on 05/20/2005 01:10:10 PM:
> John Peacock wrote:
> > I'm not opposed to this, but I'm also not sure that it's necessary
> > either. We shouldn't get too caught up in the possibly obscure edge
> > case to see that we can get 90+% of the cases simply and without
making
> > the last 10% completely impossible.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean with the 90/10 percent here. All I'm asking
> for is to have the option to *not* force a client to contact the
> repository. Especially if the hook script there just returns a static
> template or worse: nothing! If there's even a chance to avoid a repo
> roundtrip, we should take it. There's absolutely no reason to make it
> impossible for clients to optimize/work-around existing performance
> issues...
Even worse than the server round-trip is that TSVN might have to wait to
make that round-trip until after svn status is finished.
Mark
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 20 19:17:08 2005