[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: couple questions

From: Jim Blandy <jimb_at_zwingli.cygnus.com>
Date: 2000-11-03 00:24:20 CET

> > Yep. We're Enlightened, And You're Not(tm).
>
> Heh.
>
> Well, I can deal with that... I've certainly got no silly notion that I'm an
> Enlightened individual. You should see me after half a dozen margueritas :-)
>
> But... since Karl is the lead, he should get the wrist-slap for not
> communicating large changes :-)

I hope you don't feel out of the loop. I thought we had discussed
this on the list. There was certainly no intention to exclude you (or
anyone, really).

> > Second, it seemed to us that that libsvn_svr didn't have anything left
> > to do --- that it had apparently all been absorbed into mod_dav_svn.
> > Every responsibility assigned to it was something that Apache or
> > mod_dav_svn wanted to do itself.
>
> Well, I'm not sure about the term "wanted", but yah... _svr was looking
> awfully thin. We can certainly build mod_dav_svn and libsvn_fs, and then
> take a look and see if we want to rejigger the line and/or introduce a
> middle layer. But at the moment, the two are pretty tightly coupled around
> the SVN-FS API.

Exactly. The thought was that we'd wait until we had a nice concrete
role for it before we tried to spec it. :)

I think ACL's need to be part of the FS, actually. Only the FS can
tell when certain controlled operations will happen. (tentative conclusion)
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:14 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.