On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> 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.
>
And the consequence of this is that I consider the work on wc-propcaching
to be complete (modulo bug fixes of course). If no one raises objections,
I will merge this back to trunk soon. When that's done, everyone who uses
the trunk code will get her WCs upgraded to format 6. Be prepared:-)
Thanks,
//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 22:46:22 2005