> I think you're really trying to stretch the goals and requirements of this
> project beyond what anyone has for it at this time....
Actually, I was trying to describe why DCMS has made a particular choice in
response to Greg's question. Provided they do not take up too much of the
list bandwidth, I think the subversion design process can benefit from
hearing those reasons even where it does not adopt the same solutions, much
as the discussion of cryptographic hashes as names has led to some benefit.
> After we hit 1.0, we can worry about what it means to
> Subversion to have a "user" be not an opaque string but something else.
You have said this several times in response to various notes, and in my
experience it is simply wrong. There are many things that can be fixed
later. Issues of naming and access control, in my experience, are not among
them. When (if ever) these things get implemented is your choice to make,
but I urge you not to design your way into a corner (as CVS did) by failing
to plan ahead.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:05 2006