Re: RFC: Standardizing a 'svn:branch' (boolean) property

Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 17.07.2012 21:08, Julian Foad wrote:
>>  I know it would be nice and convenient if it was defined centrally
>>  here, but ... I dunno, others may disagree, but I think we need a much
>>  more rigorous definition before I'd be happy to consider it.
>
> Thank you, Julian, for putting it so clearly.

Yeah, well, it seems some people -- cmpilato for one -- do have some non-shallow thoughts about this subject.  C-Mike said on IRC:

julianf: I think you're looking at things backward.  Or maybe I am.  I don't want users' haphazard behaviors to inform the server about what appears to be a branch-root.  I want a person -- the same person who would fire off the angry email to the idiot that merged and committed a subtree -- to say up front:  "Here's our branch-root, server (and client).  Now protect it!"
I guess what I want is Enversion semantics, implement in Subversion's core with prelim enforcement in the client (as opposed to in a hook script that can only fire after users upload 50Meg of ill-aimed merge commit info).

(From <http://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/svn-dev?date=2012-07-17#l261>.)

May the discussion yet bear fruit.
- Julian
Received on 2012-07-17 22:56:06 CEST