> In the later one kfogel says they "concluded that 'hidden' was not
> appropriate for .svn". I haven't read the earlier thread so I don't
> know why.
Well, Karl's summary may not have been entirely thorough. As I read the
original discussion, the idea trickled away because Windows hidden
directories don't hide things quite as well as some people wanted them
to (didn't accomplish the requirements of the original suggester).
But it's all very odd, since I don't think Unix dot files accomplish
those goals, either. Windows hidden-file semantics are definitely
different from Unix dot-file semantics. It does no good to say simply
"it's 'hidden' on Unix, it should be 'hidden' on Windows." But heck,
man: Windows anything-you-care-to-name semantics are "definitely
different" from Unix closest-analogue semantics, that's no argument,
either.
What we should do is decide if there's some value to Windows hiding, and
if so prioritize the change based on that value. Windows hiding does
two things:
* Naïve users casually browsing around using Windows Explorer or "dir"
(those who don't set the Folder Option) don't see them.
* Naïve users searching with Windows Explorer (those who don't check the
search option) don't see them.
Those seem like good things to me, but they don't seem particularly
urgent or crucial things.
-===-
Jack Repenning
CollabNet, Inc.
o: 650.228.2562
c: 408.835.8090
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed May 7 23:29:04 2003