On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 01:29:04PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 25.06.2018 13:21, Julian Foad wrote: > > Can someone confirm this makes sense as a feature request? > > > > I know the usual caveats apply: details need to be filled in, and lack of > > resources; but basically? > > Basically, sure. In practice, though, I've never found these > notification services to be very reliable and consistent. All of them > tend to leak events in one way or another. It's OK to have 95% > correctness for painting icons in a GUI, but not OK for "svn status", > let alone "svn commit". > > (I'd tend to be slightly miffed if a GUI told me I can't commit just > after I changed a file ...) > > -- Brane >
Why would the commit code have to rely on this feature? As I understand this proposal, the feature would be designed as a "fast" replacement for svn_wc_walk_status(), for informational purposes only. The commit operation should keep working as it does today.
