Re: A few ideas concerning Subversion

Here is my 100% personal opinion. (When I say "we", I'm talking about
my personal impression of what the group of developers has said.)

> a) Adding a CVS proxy
> b) Drop in replacement for CVS

If people want to use CVS, they can. Gateways like this are likely to
lose semantic information and act confusingly. (But I doubt the
project would reject code for these things if someone wrote them and
did a good job.)

> c) Linking to Zope
> d) Wiki
> i) Server controlled UI for conforming clients

Gadgets. I don't think we need more gadgets.

> e) Mount points in the file system

> I have read in a recent message that sub-repositories were argued to
> death and summarily rejected, but I'm at a bit of a loss to
> understand why.

We definitely want working directories to be able to handle multiple
repositories. CVS can already do this, people use it (heck, we use
it), it's important. It's not part of 1.0, and we don't know how
we're going to do it, but it's still high up on the list. The idea
definitely hasn't been rejected, just put off.

We also want filesystem nodes to be able to refer to external
resources ("configuration nodes"). This is a little more blue-sky
because the notion of an overall project version goes out the window
when you do that.

> f) Staying flexible enough for alternate uses
> g) Modular form for Subversion server

We're on track here, although server-side plugins may not be part of
1.0.

> h) Rewriting libs in other languages

Of course... on a resource-available basis.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:23 2006