> > Yep. We're Enlightened, And You're Not(tm).
>
> Heh.
>
> Well, I can deal with that... I've certainly got no silly notion that I'm an
> Enlightened individual. You should see me after half a dozen margueritas :-)
>
> But... since Karl is the lead, he should get the wrist-slap for not
> communicating large changes :-)
I hope you don't feel out of the loop. I thought we had discussed
this on the list. There was certainly no intention to exclude you (or
anyone, really).
> > Second, it seemed to us that that libsvn_svr didn't have anything left
> > to do --- that it had apparently all been absorbed into mod_dav_svn.
> > Every responsibility assigned to it was something that Apache or
> > mod_dav_svn wanted to do itself.
>
> Well, I'm not sure about the term "wanted", but yah... _svr was looking
> awfully thin. We can certainly build mod_dav_svn and libsvn_fs, and then
> take a look and see if we want to rejigger the line and/or introduce a
> middle layer. But at the moment, the two are pretty tightly coupled around
> the SVN-FS API.
Exactly. The thought was that we'd wait until we had a nice concrete
role for it before we tried to spec it. :)
I think ACL's need to be part of the FS, actually. Only the FS can
tell when certain controlled operations will happen. (tentative conclusion)
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:14 2006