On 24.01.2014 23:30, Bert Huijben wrote:
> 4) Should we expose editor v2?
> Personally, I think that (given that nothing has changed to verify the
> implementation) we should hide it as private api, just like we did for 1.8.
> There are still quite a few known issues in the implementation and I don't
> think we should make it an supported ra API until we have at least one
> verified RA implementation.
> (One of the known issues is that it sometimes uses WORKING and BASE as
> referring to the same nodes... Which might work when testing, but certainly
> won't work with single replacement or multilayer/replacements and/or moves)
We should, but someone has to implement the missing bits. Any takers? I
would do it, but my hands are full; apart from the Unicode normalization
fix that I'd really like to get into 1.9, I also have a number of API
enhancements on my list that will make it easier to write other clients.
> 5) What should happen with the new tunnel svn_ra layer? Is it complete?
> It looks nice, but in its current state doesn't allow linking a library like
> libssh2 on Windows, because there are no callbacks or a proper stream... but
> just a pipe.
I don't understand the difference between "proper stream" and "pipe",
and which callbacks you'd like to have. Would you care to elaborate,
please? I'm very interested in expanding this API to make it work better.
FWIW, it's currently a complete replacement for the tunnel definitions
in ~/.subversion/config; it doesn't add any functionality to that, but
neither does it provide any /less/ functionality. If you'd care to
explain what you think is missing, I'll be happy to implement it.
> 7) Server side move handling
> Any status updates?
> Quite a few apis were revved to expose moves via log, etc., but I didn't see
> any completed work on recording them?
We're anywhere near to being ready for that, IMO.
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
Received on 2014-01-25 09:48:21 CET