[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Locking consensus(es) so far

From: Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU>
Date: 2004-10-18 17:06:33 CEST

On Mon, 2004-10-18 at 08:39, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Branko,
> I've already capitulated to the majority, on this topic. But I think
> you have a misconception of what "hijacked file" means, as described in
> the ui document.

I don't think it's so much that he has a misconception as that he's
obtuse. :) In
http://www.contactor.se/~dast/svn/archive-2004-10/1023.shtml he
presented a definition of "hijack" which differs from the definition in
the UI document, and he has since chosen to reinterpret other people's
statements according to his definition of the word.

While I agree with him that the UI document's use of the term "hijack"
isn't great (the term really suggests a hostile third party, not merely
a user's tools overriding our decision to set the read-only bit), that
doesn't justify confusing the conversation by unilaterally redefining
the term.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 18 17:07:00 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.