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

Re: Projects?

From: Marc Singer <elf_at_buici.com>
Date: 2003-10-22 03:35:49 CEST

On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 07:03:53PM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Marc Singer <elf@buici.com> writes:
> > > Answer: global revision numbers work really well; nobody is
> > > confused, nobody is wishing it were vastly different, everyone is
> > > used to it. It makes many, many things extremely easy and
> > > conceptually clear. If the design had backfired, we would have
> > > gone back to the drawing board early on.
> >
> > I don't think that's his point. AFAICT, he never suggested that the
> > global revision number be eliminated.
> But he did suggest it was a bad idea in certain cases. He claimed
> that it made it impossible for two projects to share a repository.

His use of 'impossible' suggested to me that is was bothersome. I
didn't take the comment literally.

> > > I'm not sure what to tell you, except, 1) read the book, and 2) try
> > it out.
> >
> > Is is really a bad idea to be able to put a keyword entry in a file
> > that is a file-relative change count?
> Nope, that's why we have issue #1525.
> But consider that the change-count is not meaningful. If you have
> multiple branches, you could have seven different 'foo.c' files, all
> related to each other, all with the same change-count.

Believe me, I get it that this is a tricky problem. That's why I was
most curious about the *purpose* to which our friend was planning to
use this file-relative version number.

Thanks for the good work.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 22 03:36:32 2003

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.