[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: The `on_disk' and `in_repos' templates.

From: Jay Whip Grizzard <elfchief_at_lupine.org>
Date: 2003-04-09 02:08:04 CEST

> Hey hey, hold on a second here. I have several repositories that I find very
> useful, and none of them follow the bog-standard layout.

Go back and re-read what I wrote. I was not -- at all -- trying to imply
that there should be "one standard layout" to repositories, or even,
really, that the "standard" layout folks here use is the best layout (or
even a good one (though I, personally, am rather fond of it)).

What I -am- trying to say is that the current -default- layout (which is
a completely empty repository) is probably not very useful to your
average person-on-the-street who's just trying to get CVS-like functionality
without all the CVS-like cruft, which I suspect will be quite a large
percentage of Subversion's ultimate userbase.

> Anyway, I don't disagree with the idea of repository templates. They can be
> useful, especially if you are creating repos for C projects all day. I don't
> even object to having a template applied by default, as long as I can turn it
> off. But I do take issue with your statement that repos without an
> authoritative structure will cease to be useful in the long term;

Again, see previous. I didn't say you needed 'an authoritative' structure,
I said you needed -A- structure. You have to have -some- structure as
default (even if that structure is 'empty'), and the default should really
be the simplest structure that is useful to the largest number of people
right off the bat (even if that sentence doesn't make complete sense :).
A 'no structure' repository is -not- useful to a large number of people.

[The fact (theory?) that 99% of this list probably immediately follows
 their 'svnadmin create' with a 'svn mkdir' to make some meta-structure
 demonstrates that, I think.]

I don't propose anyone dictate standards. I propose that in absense of a
user explicitly requesting something different, the 'empty' structure
they get when making a new repository be more useful than 'no structure'.

> and I also think you are overstating Subversion's 'barriers to entry'.

Well, I've probably "sold" about two dozen users on subversion, and had
them go try to check it out, and not a single one of them has even managed
to set up a test repository. Right now, this is because compiling Subversion
is a true pain in the ass (to say the least), which is a pretty major
barrier to entry. I'm sure that I'll actually get some converts when that
problem goes away (presumably when 1.0 comes around), but subversion has
plenty of other barriers, some high, some not, but why not lower them a
bit more if we can, without hurting much?

-jay

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 9 02:08:46 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.