Re: svn 1.0 in 2006 or now?

> 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.

Just as a "minor" point, you are engineering by faith only:

     I _suppose_ there will [...] be [...] some kind of
     isomrphic relationship [because of just a few underspecified
     factors common to all formats]

     [....]

     If the new format contains more info [...] new fields will
     _most likely_ remain blank [and, implicitly, this will not
     impact users]

It seems to me that the sum of concerns of arch and svn (pre and post
1.0) cover roughly:

*) A CVS-like user interface
*) changeset management
*) distribution
*) process integration
*) long-lived archives

and that _none_of_those_topics_are_mysteries_. There's no good reason
to just "suppose" or wave topics away with "most likely".

You might very well be able to add to that list of design concerns,
but I doubt you'll uncover anything that, at this point in history,
justifies at least planning in detail for those features and
incorporating that planning into any widely deployed release.

I think I'll shut up now unless someone replies with something really
interesting.

-t

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jan 1 05:36:51 2003