On May 23, 2005, at 11:16 PM, VK Sameer wrote:
> Peter N. Lundblad wrote on 05/24/2005 02:15 AM:
>
>> I think you could clean this up a little before a detailed review.
>> There
>>
> is some debugging printfs left in the code:-)
>
> Whoops, sorry about that :( - need to do a more careful review of
> the patch
> next time before sending it out. An updated patch is attached.
>
>
>> MOre importantly, I think it would be good if you started by a
>> patch to
>>
> libsvn_ra_svn/protocol. Then we can get the protocol extension
> right first.
>
> Hmm, Ben (Collins-Sussman) said he wanted to grab 2263 (the same
> extension over ra_dav) and it's currently assigned to him. I'm not
> sure of
> the status though.
the ra_svn protocol has nothing to do with th ra_dav changes, so feel
free to provide a patch for the protocol document.
> While I have your attention, Peter ;) and others. Is the intent of
> this
> extension to pass a set of paths (and revision numbers or other
> associated
> data) end-to-end?
I'm not Peter, but I can answer this. :)
The intent of this change is to send the comment, owner and force
flag once, and a revnum and a path for each path to be locked or
unlocked, and to do it all in one server roundtrip. The existing
code just makes a bunch of roundtrips to the server, sending one lock
at a time.
-Fitz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue May 24 07:20:54 2005