On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 16:19, Walter Nicholls wrote:
> I trying to prioritise features for 1.1, how about looking at the
> subversion development process from the point of view of not adding
> *features* but adding *users*
That's perhaps a nice idea, but most developers are going to scratch
their own itches. The CollabNet developers presumably have some
priorities coming down from above, but I think CollabNet is more
interested in competing with Clearcase than competing with VSS. (Not
that I can speak for CollabNet in any capacity.)
Another problem is that we can never totally satisfy a given class of
users. We have not satisfied all CVS users with 1.0: we lack certain
CVS features, we don't have the same flexibility of repository
administration, and we do some things in different ways.
> I think the main SourceSafe features that Subversion 1.0 does not cover
> are:
> 1. Locking (both exclusive and advisory)
> 2. Shared files (same file in two repository locations)
> 3. Labels (named revisions)
I'll note that CVS has all of these (although I hear its locking support
kind of sucks). Moreover, the third one is not a missing feature of
Subversion, but a case where Subversion has a different way of
accomplishing the same thing. We should be careful not to add features
which merely create another way of doing the same thing. (That's a
matter of opinion, of course; commercial products often take the
opposite approach, in order to appeal to the intuitive preferences of
many different kinds of users. But I think we're better off not going
that route.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Apr 2 03:13:23 2004