On Fri, 2005-06-17 at 10:27 -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
...
>I hadn't realized that you "optimized" this so that you only used svn info
>when you had to. That does seem like the better approach. I think what
>we really ought to do is nail down all of the things that JavaHL is not
>currently doing that we would like it to, and post it to Subversion. I
>seem to recall that the Node Kind info is a general problem but requires a
>"2.0" API change. Still, we ought to have an open issue with them to get
>everything we need.
+1 on creating a running "what's missing" list for JavaHL. I recommend
a plain text file stored in our SVN repo from which we occasionally
create corresponding issues in the SVN tracker, and record their issue
numbers in the list. For instance:
JavaHL change list
==================
[not yet filed] JavaHL should support multiple SVNUrl args
...
I am open to reviewing all JavaHL patches driven by Subclipse/SvnAnt
usage, and might even be able to eek out a little time to knock out some
of the issues myself.
Received on Thu Jun 23 05:44:50 2005