"Kean Johnston" <jkj@sco.com> writes:
> Since MANY people see the text-base as an obvious penalty,
> (and it really is in large scale products, all arguments about how
> cheap disk space is aside), the one thing I have not yet seen from any
> of the core designers is any attempt to address the issue. Just about
> every time this discussion comes up, the real point gets lost behind
> everyone pointing out all the reasons why its hard.
Nobody is trying to poo-poo the idea of optional text-bases; we're
simply trying to discourage people from thinking it's a) easy, or b)
going to be accepted before 1.0. (It would take the "core" svn
developers months to do the job; so we politely try to discourage
svn newbies who generously offer to code it up in a weekend.)
Text-bases were an axiomatic design choice when we started out.
There's simply no way to remove them right now, save rewriting all of
libsvn_wc from scratch -- a zillion features depend on this axiom.
Yes, absolutely, in hindsight, it's debatable as to whether it was a
good initial design choice to make text-bases axiomatic; we understand
that people want to make it optional, and we respect that request.
libsvn_wc *will* be rewritten after 1.0.
> I have noticed a fairly heavy trend towards "that's the way it is
> we'll deal with it later". That's a bit disturbing for the long term
> future of svn, unless large re-write or re-design cycles are
> anticipated post 1.0, in which case its no big deal at all.
Absolutely. Nobody has ever said, "sorry, ain't ever gonna happen."
What we've said over and over is "sorry, that will be svn 2.0."
Subversion 1.0 isn't the end of the line; it's the beginning.
We need to choose our battles carefully to get to 1.0, and rewriting
libsvn_wc from scratch simply cannot be in the 1.0 battle plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Apr 28 16:13:05 2003