On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> wrote:
> Charles Acknin wrote:
>
> > I don't think he is, there's been talk about wc-ng and you'll find a
> > design note in notes/wc-ng-design.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, I skimmed over that and frankly it looks like another
> "not-invented-here" reflex. So I've reserved my comments until I have more
> time to really dig into that.
Well, as things stand, *any* direction is better than continuing with
the current code. We have *53* issues outstanding which can't be
solved in the current framework (for the most part). It could be that
some developers are devining inferior solutions, but then again: we
had this developer which had the layout for the perfect working copy
all in his had. He promised to write it all down for about a year and
a half, then left the project. Now he's allegedly back, but possibly
he's still lacking time to do what it takes on this front. That noted,
I think the other developers are still anxious to leave the current wc
behind and are taking faith into their own hands. Sounds plausible,
not?
> I'm really worried that we'd get a new WC that assumes the current
> repository model with all its quirks, and have to do yet another new WC for
> svn-2.0.
It wouldn't be new to have to invent the same thing several times:
Most people learn and develop incrementally. For me, that's perfectly
fine.
Any comments on the doc are very much welcomed btw: some have studied
other versioning systems, some have studied the problems in our own.
Together we should be able to put something good (or even great)
together.
Bye,
Erik.
Received on 2008-04-03 13:30:24 CEST