On Thu, Dec 21, 2000 at 05:27:55PM +0100, Branko Cibej wrote:
>...
> Greg Stein wrote:
> > However... Where is DAV impinging on SVN? Back that one up, or drop the
> > FUD... :-)
> >
> > I have been striving quite diligently to keep DAV from impacting SVN (since
> > *March*, when I first proposed it to Karl). And if you really want to know,
> > I'm planning on using a custom "report" between the client and the server
> > which will effectively blast away any chance of interoperability with other
> > DAV clients/servers. That can be remedied (a bit expensively) in the future.
> > But for 1.0, we're taking the shortcut (and using stuff not in the DAV
> > specs) to avoid impacts on SVN.
> >
> > Where do you see DAV affecting SVN's design?
>
> This is what I understood from your posts: "DAV uses URIs for property
> names, therefore Subversion should use URIs for property names."
> Everything else was mostly finding arguments for that.
>
> I may have misunderstood you. If so, I apologize.
I wasn't clear, so yah... there's a bit of misunderstanding. No need to
apologize... I wasn't offended and I can be blamed for not being clear.
I find the *rationale* for why DAV uses URIs to apply to SVN, too. So... you
could say there is a rationale R. R applies to SVN, and it happens to apply
to DAV. But that doesn't create any causal effects between SVN and DAV.
:-)
> However, I still disagree. :-)
That's fine. :-)
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:18 2006