So, to summarize, the motivations are * doesn't require perl/python on Windows * doesn't require third party scripts / extra packages on Unix * useable by API clients * canonical implementation
Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:03:22 +0200: > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:55:15PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:34:46 +0200: > > > On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:21:27PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > > > Please convince me why having svn_client_bisect() is needed. > > > > > > > > There are already THREE scripts out there that implement cmdline 'svn > > > > bisect': > > > > one on CPAN, one in Peter's Debian package, one that Julian just posted. > > > > (And we got one sent to the issue tracker a while ago, but the CPAN one > > > > was more featureful) > > > > > > Julian's implementation is, by his own account, incomplete. > > > > > > There is precedence here. Let me provide two examples: > > > We have svnmerge.py. Why is there merge-tracking in svn now? > > > We have 'svn patch' now. Wasn't UNIX patch good enough? > > > > > > > No, because it won't handle properties and renames. > > Another primary reason was that Windows users now have a patch > feature withouth installting third party software. > > > What value does > > having 'svn bisect' in the core add over the existing external > > 'svn-bisect' implementations? > > It's handy for Windows users or even Unixy types who don't want > to install zillions of helper scripts. > > I am not even going to consider ever trying to fix a bug in an > svn-bisect implementation that was written in Perl. git-svn was > enough experience of that, thank you very much. > > I suppose Arwin could share his ideas in detail once they have > developed, and explain advantages over the existing scripts.
