Re: svn 1.0 in 2006 or now?

On Tue, Dec 31, 2002 at 06:50:34PM -0800, Tom Lord wrote:

> Supposing that while adding some post-1.0 feature you discover that
> a vast simplification or other fundamental change to the logical
> structure is desirable

Whatever the change, I suppose there will still be some kind of
isomorphic relationship between both formats, because there will still
be log messages, revision numbers, etc. Therefore, it's just a matter
of writing a tool capable of converting one format into the other.

If the new format contains more info than the previous one, those new
fields will most likely stay blank if they cannot be generated from
the previous format.

> At the same time, there's talk of post 1.0 consideration of features
> like changeset management, history-sensitive merging, and
> distribution. What analysis of the problem space gives you
> confidence that the interface can reasonably remain stable as those
> advanced features are added?

Indeed. But changing the whole subversion design (which you are
trying to say implicitly, ain't you ? :) ) is just madness. It has
been talked over and over on this list. It's not because it's New
Year's Eve [Happy New Year btw !] that people will be drunk enough to
accept that suddenly ;)

Assuming it does require such drastic design changes, why not make it
2.0 and just have some scripts to transfer 1.0 repositories to 2.0
format ? Current SVN is so close to be mature that it'd be completely
stupid to stop here and rethink the whole thing. If it doesn't last
forever, it doesn't mean it cannot be used before something better is
done.

I mean, CVS -> SVN can be done, and I think there exists such tools
for almost all SCM. So why couldn't it be done here ?

-- 
Sebastien Cevey <seb@cine7.net>
Cine7.Net  -  Milcis.Net
Jabber: theefer@charente.de  -  ICQ: 48895760
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org