David Anderson wrote:
> David Anderson wrote:
>
>> What do y'all think?
>
>
> I'll take this absence of reactions as "we're all elsewhere discussing
> the colours of better bikesheds." :-)
>
> If there are no definite -1's in all this, I would like to stress the
> help this would give the svl people. Given this, I'd really like to see
> this proxy support in trunk, at least the protocol capability part.
> Would at least one commiter be okay (+0) to review my (future) patch and
> commit it? I'd just like to get some form of assurance that I won't be
> coding all this for nothing.
Well, personally I don't see the ability to reverse-proxy svn://
connections as especially useful, but assuming that it doesn't overly
complicate the protocol and the codebase I wouldn't object to it either.
Now if you were talking about a write-through caching proxy, that I
could see being pretty useful (Perforce has such a proxy, for example,
and it's often used for speeding up read-access to a remote repository,
as you would see in a branch office of a company), but that seems rather
more complex than what you're talking about here.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Aug 29 03:01:13 2005