Robert Dailey wrote:
> So this is doomed to remain broken forever? While this isn't a very
> important issue in general, it just itches at me a little bit (I'm OCD
> about little things like this lol). I understand things how you explain
> it, but I find it hard to imagine a *complete* rewrite being required to
> fix this issue. Is it a result of bad design? I cannot judge, I have not
> seen the source code. But I do sympathize this situation, I wish I could
> do something to help.
Autsch!
Sure, the design of the cache is not perfect. I guess every developer
thinks about a piece of code once it is 'finished' that it could have
been done better, but just calling it 'bad design' is a little bit hard.
My explanation on why you see this behavior was not meant that it will
remain 'broken' forever. Just that it requires a lot of work: as I said
either a rewrite of the cache, or some ugly hack. Also, don't forget
that the cache is a delicate piece: I can't just add code which adds
more harddrive accesses - that would make it slower. So I have to always
decide what's more important: speed or accuracy.
Also, I don't really think it's that big of an issue.
> Thanks for taking the time to look into the issue. Maybe I should stop
> reporting bugs, it seems to make everyone depressed :P
I never said you should stop reporting bugs. But you can't expect me (or
others) to jump immediately to fix things. If you follow the mailing
lists (there are two you know: users and dev) you can see that there are
a lot of mails I have to answer, and a lot of issues to solve. And I
have a 'real' job where I earn money for a living - I can only work on
TSVN in the evenings or on weekends. And even I sometimes just shut down
my computer and watch some tv or read a book.
Stefan
--
___
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
Received on 2008-09-05 21:29:33 CEST