On Dec 16, 2004, at 12:41 PM, Jani Averbach wrote:
> On 2004-12-16 18:09+0000, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>>> On Dec 16, 2004, at 11:50 AM, Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
>>>> Do people agree that we unlock by default and don't on --keep-locked
>>>> switch? I'll assume so if I don't get massive objections:-)
>>>
>>> That certainly seems to be the consensus.
>>
>> As usual, I'll recommend providing explicit switches for both ways,
>> so that
>> the default need not be finalised in the first release that supports
>> locking. After one release worth of experience, we may have a better
>> idea
>> of what the default should be, or whether the default should be
>> configurable.
>
> Or what about if we use our svn-users list and ask there?
>
>
To quote maxb, I think we should be making a choice-by-logical-design,
not choice-by-whoever-shouts-loudest. :-)
I don't see much -- if any -- contention going on here. I and one
other person initially objected to the idea of commits releasing locks
by default (and in particular, releasing locks on unedited files). But
then we were persuaded otherwise.
Decisions should be made through rational arguments and debates.
Anyone on users@ is free to come in here and argue against what seems
to be the popular opinion. At the moment, the only thing we're arguing
about isn't which default to use, it's whether we're able to change
behaviors later on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Dec 16 20:07:59 2004