> From my point of view, the problem is slightly different. Let me try
> to explain:
> if programmers use svn to version source files, administrators could
> use fsvs to commit configuration files.
I never doubted that fsvs was useful. I can see many advantages by using
it (not for me on Windows though).
>> I mentinoned this before: what if Subversion wants to use the very same
>> properties in the future...
> And now about the current questions and doubts: Which one is first,
> egg or chicken?
> Do you think svn developers will annonce soon: 'lets make svn for
> administrators and svn for backup... because svn for developers
> (source) is very completed and there are no any bugs'?
You're assuming that those properties can only be used for backup tools?
That's not correct. Subversion doesn't have to implement the same as
fsvs - they could make use of those property names for other things.
> Negative, I think it could be (maybe soon) especially if people have
> chance to try it, if they find it useful and ask for it.
> Apart of all above:
> If svn decide to use the properties which are already used from fsvs:
> 1) fsvs could be changed
> 2) properties in existing 'fsvs' repositories could be very easy
All I'm complaining about is that fsvs uses svn: properties. The
Subversion docs clearly state that these properties are reserved and
only for use by the Subversion lib itself.
Other projects must use other property namespaces. FSVS could use fsvs:
instead of svn:, and everything would be just fine.
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
Received on 2008-09-05 10:54:48 CEST