Re: [Monotone-devel] Re: Automate weirdness...

[Timothy Brownawell]

On Thu, 2007-08-02 at 09:59 +1000, William Uther wrote:
> On 02/08/2007, at 7:28 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 02:14:04PM +0100, Bruce Stephens wrote:
> >> If you didn't produce the LF, then what would you do for parents (or
> >> other commands that can return more than one): add a LF for each only
> >> when there's more than one, or omit all LFs (so the callers needs to
> >> know to split into 40 character chunks), or use LFs as separators,  
> >> not
> >> terminators?
> >
> > For that matter, it's possible that get_base_revision_id will return
> > multiple ids in the future, as support for workspace merge improves...
> 
> I guess I was expecting that with this fancy mechanism for breaking  
> up a response into multiple chunks, those multiple chunks might  
> actually be used for something.
> 
> At the moment "mtn au stdio" returns exactly the same as "mtn  
> automate", but encoded in a format that allows pipelined commands.   
> That is nice.  It just isn't exactly what I was expecting when I saw  
> the format allowed multiple chunks.

You'll see the multiple chunks if the automate command flushes its
output stream, or if it produces more than a given amount of output
(--automate-stdio-size, current default is 32k).