Re: Merge tracking - Managing expectations

2007/11/17, Julian Foad <julianfoad@btopenworld.com>:
> People switching to Subversion or starting to use merging in a big way need to
> be told clearly what the capabilities and limitations are, lest we disappoint
> them and give ourselves a bad name just because they assumed we were providing
> an ultimate automatic solution to all their merging needs.

As a user, I can confirm this is important

As an example, when we decided to use Subversion at work, we thought
it would be the "ultimate automatic solution" to all our renaming
needs. We've consequently been somewhat disappointed when we ran into
troubles with merging and other things "fake renames" don't handle.
This didn't stop us from using subversion, but we decided to avoid
renames as much as possible until subversion had full support for
them, because we didn't trust the feature in its current incarnation.

Had it been called "basic renames", with a link to the explanation of
the limitations in the book, it would have saved a few hours of
trouble. The book does mention the limitations, but only in the
section of the chapter about merges, not in any part that describes
renames.

> * Should we call the feature some phrase like "basic merge tracking" now so
> as to be sure not to imply "all you could possibly want from merge tracking"?

It could be a good thing. Though if "basic" is deemed too
underselling, comming up with a good term won't be easy. "Common
use-cases merge tracking" doesn't cut it :-)

-- 
Julien Cugnière
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org