Robert Collins wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 08:08 +0000, Andrew Bennetts wrote:
>> * it is invoked for all changes where one side has changed the
>> content, and the other side has changed the content or deleted the fil
>
> Why not 'all changes' ? I don't see why we should prevent hooks merging
> even one-side changes in a more sophisticated manner.
That would require us to pay attention to THIS-only changes, and that
would be a performance regression.
Aaron
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Robert Collins wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-12-18 at 08:08 +0000, Andrew Bennetts wrote:
>> * it is invoked for all changes where one side has changed the
>> content, and the other side has changed the content or deleted the fil
>
> Why not 'all changes' ? I don't see why we should prevent hooks merging
> even one-side changes in a more sophisticated manner.
That would require us to pay attention to THIS-only changes, and that
would be a performance regression.
Aaron enigmail. mozdev. org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://
iEYEARECAAYFAks rtrIACgkQ0F+ nu1YWqI3a6wCeNd mME7ZY/ xSZ7ma6snOd30fE GfpkTivlXF8uFDa 5w
XUUAni6xZaHfi47
=uew/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----