subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexey Neyman <sti...@att.net>
Subject Re: unversioned properties: size limitations?
Date Wed, 13 Aug 2014 02:02:51 GMT
On Tuesday, August 12, 2014 11:53:09 AM Ben Reser wrote:
> On 8/12/14 9:31 AM, Branko ─îibej wrote:
> > For a start, this would require a major change in the wire protocol, where
> > the server would, as a response to a successful commit, report any
> > additional "magic" changes to the client. The problem with this is that
> > it is error prone; the response may never arrive, for any number of
> > reasons. Therefore, the client could not mark commtited items up-to-date
> > until and unless it received the response. Since at least the DAV
> > protocol is stateless, this implies all sorts of complications and the
> > introduction of intermediate states in the working copy.
> > 
> > In short: yes, it'd be hard.
> 
> Ignoring all that... There's a better reason why it won't happen.
> 
> Subversion clients before whatever version we add it to won't support it.
> Which leaves those clients with stale caches.  You'd have to disallow it
> with older clients or just ignore the stale cache problem.  I frankly do
> not see the community accepting a change that ignores such a huge problem
> with old clients.

Isn't that the same kind of change that happened with version 1.5 and mergeinfo? If one 
wanted to use mergeinfo, one had to have 1.5+ clients. A capability reporting was added, 
and a server can check that only mergeinfo-capable clients can start a commit. Same here,

if a repository administrator wants to have pre-commit scripts that modify a transaction,

he'd better check the clients' ability to handle a change to be applied to WC in server's

response.

Regards,
Alexey.

Mime
View raw message