>>Perhaps the solution is to reduce the "freeness" of the tagging and
>>branching scheme. If there was a fixed, enforced naming scheme for tags,
>>client interfaces could provide more facilities to the user. But it
>>would be against the spirit of Subversion... but.. why not creating some
>>way an administrator could write the branching and tagging scheme down?
>>Subversion could the provide extra management facilities, like enforcing
>>that people can create tags but not commit in them. And tools would be
>>able to download this file and use it to provide a much better interface
>>to the user.... Just some thoughts...
>>
>>
>
>This has come up on the list before, and I hope it never happens. One of the things that is so
>appealing about Subversion is the lack of conventions imposed on the user. If others need policies
>concerning tag commits, repository layouts, and so on, scriptify them (and chuck 'em in contrib/ if
>you want).
>
>I have trouble believing that people can't make Subversion work for them - it's totally flexible
>and scriptable. It seems that old work habits are the main roadblock.
>
>
Read again, I didn't say subversion should impose any convention. The
idea would be some standard way of describe the user's convention to
make it known to the client interfaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Apr 16 04:59:26 2004