Helge Jensen wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
>>
>
>> I think you're already jumping the gun in trying to propose specific
>> types of merge-tracking properties. There's a much larger discussion
>> to be had first: what *is* merge-tracking? There seems to be a
>> whole class of problems by that name. We need to enumerate them,
>> prioritize them, etc.
>
>
> I think what Carl proposes is an excellent *small*-step towards
> merge-tracking: Simply recording the operations that have been done in
> a standardized form.
>
> * recording is importent for understanding how the content came to
> look as it does in revN -- This is done in comments right now, or
> properties in svk.
>
> * standardized is importent for sharing the representation between
> tools
>
> Is the choice really between "the grand solution" and "nothing"?
No, the choice is beteween "right solution" and "nothing".
Jumping into the code and making that small step that seems "obvious" is
a recipe for disaster. We've tried it before and got burned (the WC is a
good example).
WRT this specific solution: until you've thought out the big picture,
you can't be sure that the recorded operations and "standard" format are
what you'll actually need.
> No matter what the discussion on
> http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/trunk/notes/merge-tracking.txt ends up
> with, this is valuable information to have available.
But only if it actually turns out to be useful. Please, let's do this
the right way. We don't want to get ourselves into the situation (again)
where we have a half-baked solution that doesn't meet our needs, and yet
have to keep it around for ages because of our compatibility policy.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Mar 30 13:02:58 2005