Mark Phippard wrote:
> 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.
And that's exactly why I'd like to have this as an option! If the
project admin decides that the log message template must not be static
but follow a certain policy which requires dynamic templates, then ok,
TSVN would have to wait (and therefore the user too). But I'd say most
projects are satisfied with static templates and would just be very
upset with the forced delay.
Stefan
--
___
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 20 19:27:36 2005