On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 01:29:04PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 25.06.2018 13:21, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Can someone confirm this makes sense as a feature request?
> > I know the usual caveats apply: details need to be filled in, and lack of resources; but basically?
> Basically, sure. In practice, though, I've never found these
> notification services to be very reliable and consistent. All of them
> tend to leak events in one way or another. It's OK to have 95%
> correctness for painting icons in a GUI, but not OK for "svn status",
> let alone "svn commit".
> (I'd tend to be slightly miffed if a GUI told me I can't commit just
> after I changed a file ...)
> -- Brane
Why would the commit code have to rely on this feature?
As I understand this proposal, the feature would be designed as a "fast"
replacement for svn_wc_walk_status(), for informational purposes only.
The commit operation should keep working as it does today.
Received on 2018-06-25 13:37:46 CEST