Re: Issue #2991 resolved, but questions remain.
Karl Fogel wrote:
> Blair Zajac <email@example.com> writes:
>>> I have the same opinion as Dave. Karl, can things be structured such
>>> that the protocol-specific capabilities are sent only for the relevant
>>> protocols, and the global Subversion-specific capabilities are always
>> Shouldn't we have 2 sets of capabilities? Svn and protocol specific?
>> Do we want to use filtering? Say a 1.6 client has svndiffN and sends
>> it to a 1.5 server, then thee 1.5 server won't filter it out and pass
>> it to the start-commit script.
>> Unless I'm misunderstanding something how the new capabilities work.
> The larger issue of clearly separating protocol capabilities from
> functionality capabilities is not something I want to address now
> (would delay 1.5, etc).
> But we can still make sure the 'start-commit' hook hears consistent
> capabilities independent of RA layer. The way to do this, I think,
> is to have the client continue sending every capability it knows about
> (be liberal in what you send), while the server filters out those it
> doesn't care about (be conservative in what you keep).
> Of course, "those it doesn't care about", really means "those that
> writers of start-commit hooks shouldn't care about", since
> start-commit is the only audience for client->server capabilities at
> the moment. But if later on internal server code needs to know client
> functionality, we can just start remembering more of the capabilities
> the client told us.
> The important thing is that the client send everything it knows at all
> times, so that server upgrades are likely to be backwards-compatible
> (and even bring in new functionality) without any client upgrade being
> I have done the above in r27656.
Sounds good Karl,
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Wed Nov 7 17:51:47 2007
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev