Re: Status of wc-propcaching branch

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Julian Foad wrote:

> When I said "It seems to me that a generic cache is strongly preferably from a
> design point of view," how "generic" do we need? I think I meant one that is
> extensible while keeping the format of the initial implementation, and
> preferably extensible in a back-and-forward-compatible manner. It doesn't, for
> instance, need to be able to cache properties that our libraries don't know
> about - that would be fairly pointless.
>
>
Oh, I understand what you meant now. r17557 makes the presence/absence
cache generic. This turned out to be quite simple after all.

Thanks for the suggestions,
//Peter

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 29 22:36:40 2005