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

Re: RFC: Interesting keywords inelegance

From: Max Bowsher <maxb_at_ukf.net>
Date: 2005-02-07 18:55:26 CET

Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2005, at 11:13 AM, Max Bowsher wrote:
>> Why is it good to be able to control $Rev$ and $URL$ seperately, but
>> have $Rev$ and $LastChangedRevision$ not independently controllable?
>> I.e. why isn't svn:keywords a simple boolean, in that case?
> There's no need to be extreme. One extreme is a single boolean to
> either activate all keywords or not. At the other extreme is the
> possibility of fine-grained activation of every possible keyword alias.
> We chose to take the middle ground: control over activation of each
> semantic "group" of keyword aliases.
> Are you arguing that the middle ground is bad? If so, why?

Well, the point of svn:keywords is to allow you to use some keywords whilst
preserving others unexpanded, right?

Is significantly more likely to want this at the granularity of semantic
groups, rather than below that granularity?

> To me, the first extreme is too little control. The other extreme is
> overly complex.

OK, it's a balance - I can understand that. But I'm worried that we may have
_some_ complexity, which offers too little control to be useful.

I guess I would be reassured if someone can quote some use cases where it is
useful for svn:keywords to have a value including all 5 keywords.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Feb 7 18:56:52 2005

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.