Re: Roadmap for 1.1 [placeholder]

C. Michael Pilato wrote:

>Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> writes:
>
>
>
>>I think we can also get the locking-plan.txt implemented for a 1.1.
>>This is probably the 'largest' cross-cutting feature that I think we
>>should add into a 1.1. Greg's proposed libsvn_fs_fs shouldn't affect
>>everything, but locking would require changes through almost every
>>part of the code in some fashion. Perhaps now would be a good time to
>>review locking-plan.txt and see if it all still makes sense? (I
>>haven't looked at it in detail since we wrote it over 18 months
>>ago!)
>>
>>
>
>I've been looking at this document in great detail over the past week
>(sorry for not warning anyone). There are several short-comings and
>challenges, but I'm sure those can be worked out.
>
>

I have also been looking at that document. My absolutely No1
top-of-the-list for 1.x are exclusive locks and fs-level ACLs. I've come
to the concluseion that without these, Subversion remains a toy version
control system compared to the *real* competition out there (I don't
consider CVS competition :-).

I also think that locks and ACLs need similar modifications in the
existing code, so it's best if they're implemented in parallel.

-- 
Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org