Simon Large wrote:
> On 08/03/2008, Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> Simon Large wrote:
>> > On 07/03/2008, Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Simon Large wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> Should we change our hook scripts to always pass *all* params in a
>> >> >> defined way?
>> >> >
>> >> > That would make the behaviour more like svn hooks, and we could also
>> >> > provide hook templates which would help with the documentation.
>> >> >
>> >> > Are there any disadvantages? What do others think?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> One disadvantage, yes: the %PATHS% replacement would have to be dropped.
>> >> Because if that one is passed always, we could easily (too easily) cross
>> >> the limit of the command line length.
>> >> That means we'd have to only use %PATH% (the temp file containing the
>> >> list of files), which however makes it harder to write hook scripts
>> >> (they will have to read and parse that file first).
>> >
>> > I don't think that is a great loss. It should be no harder to parse a
>> > file containing one filename per line than it is to parse a single
>> > command line argument containing multiple filenames.
>>
>>
>> Done in r12295.
>
> If the hook script settings include other command line parameters, are they:
> a) sent before the fixed params
> b) sent after the fixed params
> c) ignored
>
> Not sure what they might be used for, just asking.
It would be a), they're passed before the fixed params.
> Also, should we include the hook templates in the installer or do we
> just point users to our contrib folder?
Just point them to the contrib folder, I think that's enough. Including
them in the installer won't work for all: they would be placed in the
installer folder, and people don't usually like to browse there for
files or don't even have access to it.
Stefan
--
___
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
Received on 2008-03-09 08:17:22 CET