C. Michael Pilato wrote on Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 21:31:49 -0400: > For ra_svn: I was totally wrong. This thing always requires network > activity: a "reparent" command/response at best; at worst, the complete > teardown and re-opening of the session. This is just a side-effect of the > stateful protocol. Unlike with HTTP, the server here is privy to the > "session URL" concept -- clients only perform operations using relpaths > against that URL -- and so the server must be told when that has changed.
So... should we revv ra_svn so 1.8 clients/servers can talk to each other exclusively in repos-root-relative paths?
