Re: postponed rename bugs/features concern

Chris Hecker <checker@d6.com> writes:
> There are two issues I think need to be addressed before ship, and
> they both have to do with renaming. It seems that renaming is one of
> the key differentiators for svn relative to cvs, so it's pretty
> important to get "right" out of the gate, in my opinion.

Bit of a priority difference here: The important 1.0 features are the
ones we *share* with CVS, while many (though not all) of the
differentiators are gravy.

Agree that true repository renames would be nice, but I still think
they're Post-1.0 and it's not a crisis for those who use Subversion
before then. Renames in those repositories will be represented as
copies+deletes, and will continue to be so represented after any
schema switch. So there's backwards compatibility here.

There was a thread here recently, "svn_fs_merge not used" I believe,
that brought up the rename question.

Best,
-Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 23 16:07:30 2003