[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: Max Bowsher <maxb_at_ukf.net>
Date: 2005-04-07 00:49:30 CEST

Greg Stein wrote:
> 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.

The design was incorrect on technical grounds.

It's not a matter of my choice over someone else's. It's a matter of me
noticing there are important choices involved, which haven't been really
noticed or discussed at all.

Max.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Apr 7 02:03:44 2005

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