Some private mail made it clear that a few people thought I hoped to
majorly disrupt the svn project by subsuming it into arch.
For the record, that isn't the case.
Many seem to agree that unifying arch's approach to distribution and
svn's approach to storage mgt is a worthwhile direction to, at the
very least, look into. Personally, I think this is certain, important
enough, and has enough design implications that the best course would
be to sit down in a room with svn architects and work it out earlier,
rather than later. I still think we could get farther, faster that
way, with less wasted work.
From what I read on this list, svn, like arch, is underfunded. arch
is in the worser shape of the two. So, yeah, I was interested in
revisiting svn's plans in order to find simplifications that would
yield a more featureful platform than either alone can provide --
largely motivated by the thought of spending the available money a
little differently. I do think engineers have to learn to put their
feet down and display more solidarity in relation to check signers.
If both projects were appropriately funded, there'd be no issue. If
nothing else, you'd just get patches from us, "when they're ready",
and you'd damn sure like them :-).
-t
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 1 21:50:19 2002