On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 02:36:32PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > Any reason this isn't a sensible idea? It seems really simple.
> My concern is that people, impatient and trigger-fingered as they are, in
> concert with the fact that our cancellation isn't an immediate event but
> instead just a scheduled stop-at-the-next-safe-stopping-point, would be
> killing their processes all the time.
That makes sense, sure.
> Maybe I'd be not so opposed if the handler printed a message saying what was
> going on and intentionally ignored second-time cancellations that occurred
> within some period of time of the first.
> $ svn checkout ...
> svn: Subversion operation will be canceled at the next safe opportunity.
> svn: Cancel again after 5 seconds to terminate the process unceremoniously.
Right. Perhaps I'll take a look at what it would take to do that. (But
if anyone else wants to take a look first, be my guest :-)).
Received on Wed Mar 7 20:51:28 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev