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

Re: Very emphatic -1 for r13369 (svn:keywords canonicalization)

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2005-04-06 23:54:11 CEST

On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:10:16PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
> >Just for my own education as to the process, what is the rationale for
> >reverting this change as opposed to just allowing it to be fixed? While I
> >agree that 1.2 should not be released with this change as is, it seemed
> >like it was something that could have had a fix made for it relatively
> >quickly and easily. Wouldn't that have been better?
> I commented that the custom keywords issue had not been fully thought out,
> and that in resolving it, we might possibly want to extend our svn:keywords
> syntax. Thus, I propose that we cannot start auto-munging keywords
> properties until we've designed any addition to the syntax (or decided that
> we do not need an addition).

You can veto changes on technical grounds. You cannot veto or make
design decisions, then take unilateral action. That is not right.

If you want to talk about the design, then do so. You can't just start
reverting stuff because it doesn't match your design choice.


Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Apr 7 01:06:48 2005

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