On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 01:15:06PM +0530, Arwin Arni wrote:
> Hi All,
> I am currently trying to implement "svn bisect" subcommand. Yes, I
> know there are some good scripts out there that work, but it's not
> part of our API. I figured this would be a decent addition to our
> code. Here are a few things I wanted to ask the community:
> 1. Would it be better if the command ran as a single process
> throughout the bisect operation and keep track of things in memory,
> or should it work like the scripts that are out there which keep
> track of things on disk (in a persistent file)?
Depends on your requirements. I suppose bisect is supposed to
be restartable? If so it would probably make sense to stick
state somewhere into wc.db?
> 2. For the scripts that are currently out there, the 'probe script'
> runs in the environment in which the bisect script was run. Is it
> safe to have a subcommand that runs an external script? Is there a
> precedent to this kind of behaviour?
The script could delete files, trash the working copy, whatever.
But it is, after all, supplied by the user doing the bisection, right?
So I don't think there is any difference here to existing mechanisms
that invoke diff commands and the like. Those are equally "unsafe".
> 3. Will this feature be considered at all (if it is any good) or am
> I simply doing something to exercise my brain cells?
I would consider it useful.
Since you have some track record in getting patches committed,
I'd like to offer you commit access to a branch in our repository
so you work on this there if you like.
Received on 2011-06-21 10:30:05 CEST