Re: 'svnadmin setrevprop' command and its interface (r21736)
On Tue, 03 Oct 2006, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Daniel Rall wrote:
> > On Tue, 03 Oct 2006, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> >> On 10/2/06, Daniel Rall <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >>> My desired behavior for 'svnadmin setrevprop' is be:
> >>> o Bypass revprop change hook scripts by default, as this is a program
> >>> intended for repository administration. This behavior differs from
> >>> that of 'svnadmin setlog'.
> >>> o Allow hook scripts to be invoked using command-line flags, a la
> >>> 'svnadmin load':
> >>> --use-pre-revprop-change-hook
> >>> --use-post-revprop-change-hook
> >>> I'd be happy to implement the above.
> >> Perhaps something like --skip-hook-scripts with a default of skipping
> >> all of them, but optionally taking a list of hooks to skip? Or the
> >> other way around with --run-hook-scripts. Honestly I'm fine with it
> >> the way it is though.
> > ...
> > --skip-hook-scripts is what the existing --bypass-hooks flag does
> > (which Mike doesn't like). Running hook scripts does not strike me as
> > the desired default behavior for an administrative program like
> > 'svnadmin', nor would it be consistent with the 'load' sub-command
> > (though that difference is arguably understandable based on the
> > command core use cases). The main reason to make --bypass-hooks a
> > flag instead of a default is to help administrators unfamiliar with
> > 'svnadmin' from accidentally shooting themselves in the foot.
> > The only hook scripts we run for a 'propset --revprop' are
> > pre-/post-revprop-change hooks. Do we really need a list here? That
> > interface seems less friendly than two well-described, well-named
> > flags.
> I think a list is overkill. And I like switching the default to be to
> skip the hooks. Let's add --use-(pre|post)-revprop-change hook. Doing
> so means we don't have to validate an option parameters (these are
> boolean options), and gives us consistency with the 'svnadmin load' hook
Done in r21746.
Is this something we should consider for backport to the 1.4.x line?
Received on Tue Oct 3 22:52:46 2006
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev