> * I have several working copies of Subversion on my main workstation,
> capturing different versions; some were checked out from (or switched
> to) tags or branches, some just haven't been updated in a while.
> * I have repositories named "jrepenning" on several Subversion
> servers, with more or less the same contents (my home directory).
> One need only mention "the repository named 'test'" to suggest other
> possibilities of this sort.
> * On several of the machines where I work, the home directory is
> shared (so the metadata would be, in your proposal, I think?), but
> the working copies are not, and all have the same name and path, but
> different state.
> * I have upon occasion moved a repository from one server to another.
> * Some people really like to share working copies, "needle exchange"
> metaphors notwithstanding, making "home directory" an ill-defined
> concept.
These are very good points. Ultimately, I suspect that you will
not be able to solve all problems with one or the other approach.
That's why I would think the best thing is to keep it as an
option. Of course, the question is which option should be
default at some point, but that should be deferred until some
testing is done.
I'm working carefully to make sure that it's backward-compatible
with the current approach. In other words, the option will only
affect new checkouts, not old ones. I guess the best thing to do
is to get the patch out there and see what reports people come
back with.
Kumaran
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Aug 25 23:45:34 2003