--- Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
I didn't think at all that that was your agenda.
OTOH, IMHO, your posts were a bit long-winded, no
offense intended.
> 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.
I, too, think this is a worthy goal. I also think
that getting Subversion 1.0 would help in that goal --
the more Subversion users, the more support (both
moral and developer) there would be for Subversion
projects.
Part of engineering is weighing out short-term and
long-term goals. Good engineering shouldn't let
short-term goals completely subvert long-term goals
even though they may delay them sometimes. From what
you say, it may be a little more difficult to get arch
to use svn if the upfront design isn't done right now,
but it doesn't sound like it'll be an infeasible task
to do later on.
MTC,
Noel
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now
http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 1 22:12:40 2002