Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> *ALL* of the problems stated in this thread, and their potential
> solutions, have been caused by the (ahem) "useful" functionality of
> a variably-named administrative directory.
I was just being the voice of Karl, who isn't here. :-)
> And when you starting coming up with that argument, ask whether CVS
> lets you change its admin dir name, or .cvsignore. Do people
> complain? I've never heard a single bad word about that. And does
> your argument vacuously state that people want that flexibility?
> Then where is the support for that assertion? "But it should be
> visible" Ok, to what? ls? It is, if you pass -a. To programs such as
> vc-mode? They can see .svn just as easily as SVN.
Hoo.
> So far, I've heard a ton of support of '.svn', an semi-support from
> GregH for it, and one voice for "flexibility" (which sent us down
> this mess).
OK, I won't speak for Karl anymore, just for myself.
As a matter of personal opinion, I know that I just *like* being able
to see the big CVS or SVN staring me in the face, no special switches
to `ls' needed. But it seems that this a minority opinion, and I (and
Karl) are outvoted here. Such is life.
I suspect that the whole "let's have flexible administrative dir
names" idea just leaked out of us, as we were looking for a
compromise. But you're right, Greg... it seems that the "flexibility"
creates many more problems than it solves. At this point, I think
it's better to have *one* name and leave it at that. If everyone
likes '.svn', then so be it. We in the minority will simply have to
deal. :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:40 2006