On 25.06.2018 13:54, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 01:44:21PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote: >> 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). > Yes, point taken. Though inaccuracy of information provided by status > services used could be considered a bug at their end. > > In any case, we agree that this feature would need to take into account > any of the (non-)guarantees made by the underlying services. > > I'll add that similar features have been written for other version > control systems, e.g. for Mercurial, and not without problems: > """We solved this by monitoring the file system for changes. This has been > tried before, even for Mercurial, but making it work reliably is surprisingly > challenging.""" > https://code.facebook.com/posts/218678814984400/scaling-mercurial-at-facebook/
Heh heh, that also says: "After much deliberation, we concluded that Git's internals would be difficult to work with for an ambitious scaling project." I wonder how long the author needed to come up with such a diplomatic statement. :) -- Brane
