On 25.06.2018 13:37, Stefan Sperling wrote: > 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.
You're missing my point a bit, so here it is framed more explicitly: Even if we have such a feature, we should tell users very loudly that the results are approximate, not exact. Obviously "svn commit" should not rely on such approximate information; and as far as I'm concerned, neither should "svn status" on the command line (or an explicit "show status" operation in a GUI, though of course we'd have no control over how that's implemented). -- Brane
