"Erik Huelsmann" <ehuels@gmail.com> wrote on 11/30/2007 11:38:47 AM:
> On 11/30/07, kmradke@rockwellcollins.com <kmradke@rockwellcollins.com>
wrote:
> > "Matt Sickler" <crazyfordynamite@gmail.com> wrote on 11/29/2007
08:38:20
> > PM:
> > > If you are so hellbent on getting this feature (or featurecreep)
added
> > > to the core subversion library, why havn't you spent this time
hacking
> > > away at the subversion sources yourself? Its not like they are
closed
> > > source or anything.
> > >
> > > The subversion devs have already asserted that they dont want to put
> > > something into core unless its absolutely necessary.
> > > This would fall in the category "Feature that would be nice to have,
> > > but I can get along just fine without it"
> >
> > In an open source project, it is always beneficial to get "buy in"
from
> > the main developers before working on a patch to make sure the
> > functionality
> > is something they would accept. I am never a fan of forking a
project.
> >
> > Most of this discussion has been more of a misunderstanding of the
> > intended use cases.
> >
> > We have users that would benefit from some of the proposed
information,
> > but they are still able to work (less productive) with the current
> > implementation.
> >
> > We also could implement SVN functionality with a bunch of scripts on
> > top of RCS. Should we? Absolutely NOT!
>
> Sorry, but it's been tried before. It's NOT possible :-)
Just because something has been tried before and failed does not make
it impossible. Given enough time, money, and resources I'm sure
something could be created.
> Couldn't resist!
Me either! :)
Kevin R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 30 19:02:00 2007