Bob Gustafson <bobgus@rcnChicago.com> writes:
> However, as a newby to the discussion, why not challenge some of the
> current assumptions... At least that is where I am coming from.
Absolutely... and there's nothing wrong with theoretical discussions
from newbies.
At the risk of angering Tom Lord: :-)
The resistance you're seeing on this list is because those of us who
designed svn (and have been implementing it for over two years) are
kind of stressed out in trying to get a stable 1.0. We're technically
in "feature freeze", and we feel like we're drowning under an
ever-growing pile of bugs. So from our point of view, we feel like
all this discussion is stuff that we shouldn't be focusing on till
after 1.0. Those of us who know the code mostly agree that optionally
eliminating the text-base is a good design goal... but it's sitting in
a basket with about 5 other redesigns for libsvn_wc. A total redesign
and rewrite of libsvn_wc is probably inevitable; but those of us
spending hours on svn every day simply don't have the time to focus on
this redesign.
If you want to work on this problem, that's fine. But I don't think
it's something that you can just "slip in" to libsvn_wc. It's a
really huge undertaking, probably should be rolled into a total
libsvn_wc rewrite, and your work will probably end up on a post-1.0
branch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Dec 20 19:14:39 2002