Landon Clark <gmane@lclark.net> writes:
> I would also like to mention that the choice of .svn as a name, though
> logical, is arbitrary. It could have been SVN (like CVS), or _SVN, or
> whatever.
It is not arbitrary; under Unix, the prefix "." hides the object when
doing a normal 'ls'.
> "eventually fixed by Visual Studio" does nothing for those of us who
> *have* to use ASP.net and *want* to use SVN today. Don't get me
> wrong, I blame microsoft for this problem. But I am so passionate
> about this because I have been using SVN for all my work since version
> .14. I just changed jobs and I have a need to support ASP.net
> projects and thus it looks like I will have to give up SVN. I cannot
> begin to tell you how much that pains me.
>
> Please consider all of this when making a final decision about whether
> to make this change.
Well, you could just apply a simple patch to your clients, and build
them yourself. Not ideal, but the point is, there *is* a solution for
you if you really want to use Subversion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 10 19:40:52 2003