Wolf Josef wrote:
>brane@xbc.nu wrote:
>
>
>
>>I'm not rejecting the feature out of hand, bu I am seriously
>>questioning its usefulness.
>>[ ... ]
>>During 3 years on that project, I never saw a single
>>instance of using an unversioned file that doesn't already
>>have a counterpart in Subversion. The one feature we
>>actually are missing are unversioned properties
>>
>>
>
>Unversioned properties would probably solve the two
>use cases I brought into discussion. But I think it would
>be a lot more difficult to implement them.
>
It'd certainly be difficult, but I can't say at this point if it would
be more difficult than unversioned files or not. I've given thought to
the one, but not the other, so I can't compare. My feeling is that the
complexity is about the same, though.
> How efficient
>would it be to store a changelog (which can get pretty
>large) into a property?
>
That wouldn't be very efficient, at least not with our current
implementation of properties. But I was thinking of unversioned
properties (or something that behaved like them) for storing ACLs in the
filesystem, not for storing large amounts of data.
>>If someone can describe a use case that clearly requires
>>unversioned files, I'd be interested to hear it.
>>
>>
>
>I am not sure how such unversioned properties would look
>like. It does not really make a big difference where the
>data is stored. OTOH, properties are always attached to
>a file or directory, aren't they?. So you would need an
>empty file to attach the property?
>
>
Oh, you could attach such a property to the root directory of your
branch, for example. You wouldn't have to create a file for it.
--
Brane Èibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 5 03:46:33 2003