On Oct 12, 2004, at 3:47 PM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On Oct 12, 2004, at 4:52 PM, Greg Hudson wrote:
>> Issue #3: Should lock messages be required?
>> * Punt on lock messages for the initial implementation.
>> * Support lock messages, but only specify them if the user specifies
>> a -m or -F option on the "svn lock" command line.
>> * Use a file property (either the contents of svn:lock, or a
>> separate boolean property) to determine whether the UI should get
>> in the user's face about lock messages. Then a project can
>> decide, on a per-file basis, whether to require lock messages.
> I have no real opinion on this issue. What do others think?
(a) ClearCase makes this, or something rather like it, a personal
preference rather than a central one, and (b) Greg's absolutely right,
that's wrong ;-) All it does is create/promote a class system, where
those in the know can make it be nice, while all the new users, and no
small proportion of the experienced, are constantly frustrated.
Greg's second idea ("Support lock messages, but ...") should also
include a switch for "ask me for a message" (aka "pop up an editor").
[ClearCase also has an related switch that means "ask me separately for
each file affected," which surely is annoying overkill....]
Anything but "punt" is edging over toward a separate use case entirely
(which I just spent the afternoon jawing about with a customer):
auditability. ClearCase provides this with unreserved checkouts
(including log messages, controlled by personal preference, in the
equivalents of -m, -F, -pop-an-editor, and
-ask-me-for-each-file-separately). But maybe "punt now" allows the
topic of lock messages to be included in that other discussion. If we
ever have it.
I think I like "punt."
8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 600
Brisbane, California 94005
o: +1 650.228.2562
c: +1 408.835.8090
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Thu Oct 14 02:06:25 2004