Re: Size vs Focus WAS RE: ".svn" directory name no good....

kfogel@collab.net wrote:

>
> Wait a second, John. I think David's point is quite good, and not a
> "cop out" at all.

I'm sorry; I should have been more specific. I did not intend my comments to
suggest that only a working, fully tested patch was an acceptable opening volley
on whether to apply pre-1.0. I agree that a pseudo-code analysis/proposal would
be fine.

> It's quite natural that someone would want to settle that question
> *before* investing the time to implement the patch, I think!

And my point is that if this problem has been burning in David's throat since
May, why hasn't he done at least a proposed design?

If those people who care the most about the problem don't propose actual
solutions (rather than just berating the core development team for ignoring the
problem), it is not going to get done, IMO. In essence, I am challenging the
people who think this is a big problem to "put up or shut up" but trying to be
more respectful about it. ;~)

>
> I'm in favor of option #1 myself. It's the simplest workaround from a
> development point of view, and until we have a better sense of how
> many people are being inconvenienced, we should optimize for developer
> time.
>

I also agree that we should route around the problem now, rather than trying to
introduce some complicated new polymophism to the core code. However, if it
turned out that supporting both _svn and .svn was not that hard, #2 would be a
more robust solution. But someone who cares enough to research the code is
going to have to do some work to make that happen, even if it doesn't go anywhere.

John

-- 
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard
Suite H
Lanham, MD  20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5748
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org