John Peacock wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>
>> What Peter said.
>> Since we can't be consistent, it's better to be consistently
>> inconsistent, rather than inconsistently inconsistent. :-)
>
> Except that you can't take this one back (as easily) for 2.0. I agree
> completely that it would be best if svn:keywords exactly matched what we
> support for keywords in the file.
>
> Rather than the smaller universe of people who used the short
> (case-insensitive) form in svn:keywords getting bitten in the move to
> 2.0 (with the completely rewritten keyword handling ;-), now you will
> bite many more people who got lazy and didn't care about capitalization
> when they set svn:keywords.
>
> I would rather change the documentation to say that the svn:keywords
> _should_ match the usage in the files, but not change the code to
> enforce that until 2.0.
>
> I'm still -0.5, but I don't strictly have a veto, so go ahead if you
> want (see if I care ;-)
I like what you propose, but:
1) I'm not 100% sure we would get consensus that case-sensitivizing
svn:keywords in 2.0 was worth the change - although I personally would +1.
2) I don't see universal case-insensitivity now as incompatible with that.
Since _some_ canonicalization would be necessary anyway, making svn:keywords
completely case-insensitive now is inconsequential.
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Feb 8 00:33:27 2005