On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 01:15:06PM +0530, Arwin Arni wrote: > Hi All, > > I am currently trying to implement "svn bisect" subcommand. Yes, I > know there are some good scripts out there that work, but it's not > part of our API. I figured this would be a decent addition to our > code. Here are a few things I wanted to ask the community: > > 1. Would it be better if the command ran as a single process > throughout the bisect operation and keep track of things in memory, > or should it work like the scripts that are out there which keep > track of things on disk (in a persistent file)?
Depends on your requirements. I suppose bisect is supposed to be restartable? If so it would probably make sense to stick state somewhere into wc.db? > 2. For the scripts that are currently out there, the 'probe script' > runs in the environment in which the bisect script was run. Is it > safe to have a subcommand that runs an external script? Is there a > precedent to this kind of behaviour? The script could delete files, trash the working copy, whatever. But it is, after all, supplied by the user doing the bisection, right? So I don't think there is any difference here to existing mechanisms that invoke diff commands and the like. Those are equally "unsafe". > 3. Will this feature be considered at all (if it is any good) or am > I simply doing something to exercise my brain cells? I would consider it useful. Since you have some track record in getting patches committed, I'd like to offer you commit access to a branch in our repository so you work on this there if you like.