[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: r1102912 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: include/private/svn_wc_private.h libsvn_client/prop_commands.c libsvn_wc/externals.c libsvn_wc/wc_db.c tests/libsvn_wc/db-test.c

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 May 2011 05:37:27 -0400

On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 03:06, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
> Every loop would have to check if the repository matches the parent directory... and/or for file externals. Review capacity for the current code welcome.

I find this rather insulting. You check in thousands of line of
differences (wc/externals.c is 1k lines all by itself), and you
suggest that the burden is on US to review the code that you wrote,
with no guidance towards what you were trying to accomplish. And now
that it is checked in, it is "current code" ... as in somehow it has
the stamp of "done" and it is behooven upon us to go over all that

Instead... I would state that myself and Branko, possibly others, are
concerned about this approach of creating "special cases" within the
tree of nodes in the working copy.

We may need some time to review and consider and discuss. But I take
issue with "oh, well, the code is there. if you don't like it, then
review it." ... spewing code into the repository faster than others
can review is what most would call a "power plant". It has been done
several times in the past, and has still been talked about.

Your solution may be awesome. But I think you need to work with the
rest of us to show why. We're still confused and don't understand how
this is *good* for the codebase. Help rather than defend.

Received on 2011-05-15 11:38:02 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.