Stephan Witt wrote: > Where did you draw the line exactly? :-) thats difficult to describe exactly :) when you asked about some cvs improvements i thought you just want to replace few cvs parameters and perhaphs push one two new commands, give it testing and check the documentation. that was what i meant by being inside CVS class only.
when the first patch arrived i was surprised by the complexity, all these edit/unedit/gettarget methods, OpMode and so on :) but fine, when i sat down it was possible to understand whats going on, though i felt some of these things should be part of VCS class (thats what i mean being outside CVS class). i became definitely nervous when you introduced the CvsStatus state machine - didnt take hours to read it but the fact that i was not able to grasp internal logic of the code just by going through the patch suggests that anybody who will maintain later this part of code will have hard times... the reason is that you try to handle corner cases which, admittedly, are not handled in others backends. this is of course for discussion - my opinion till now was that only basic support is given and anybody who wants to use VCS should know rcs/svn reasonably well. this is stated clearly in manual and without some commandline actions proper usage of lyx VCS is not possible. background reason is that trying to build some reliable mechanism on the top of 3rd party tools and guess whats going from some fancy error messages is going to be maintenance nightmare. second thing is future - if we want to redesign VCS for something more complex we should focus on some up-to-date concepts from bazaar or git and not creatures from past. (personally i thing the _reliable_ thing could be including part of code from git used internally for embedded format, perhaps with some hooks to remote pushing, fetching... wow, this would be cool.) in any case we need to flame longer time how the api should like. this needs thinking and time and no pressure from approaching release. > CVS improvement if info inset output is possible (after review) for 2.0-beta? if its possible to make it simple and stupid using the current philosophy then yes. if you need to redesign things around, please let it sleep, its too late. > When starts the 2.1 cycle, by the way? After 2.0 final release? > Would 2.0 be a branch then? we should wait for for x.y.1 so people focus on bugfixing little more. iirc this was the case for previous releases too. pavel
