Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
>On Fri, 2005-04-08 at 13:49 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
>>Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>Julian Foad wrote:
>>>>It's not too late. Please rip it out, and propose the reversion for
>>>>back-port into 1.2.0. I forsee at least you, me, Max and Greg voting
>>>Could you do that please? I'll have my hands full with other things for
>>>the next several days, and won't have time to test the change, but I
>>>don't want to extend the 1.2 release schedule.
>>>Consider this a +1 from me for removing "svn version" from both trunk
>>>and 1.2 branch.
>>Done in r14037, and proposed for back-port to 1.2.0. Please test and vote!
>Oy. Is it really necessary to rip this completely out? I think it's
>useful, especially if we, as Ben Reser pointed out, implement
>svn version URL
>In addition, I saw no consensus on removing it. Aside from Julian and
>Branko, I saw no other +1's on ripping it out
To be pedantic, this is trunk not branch, so it's CTR. The voting only
applies to merges to the branch, so Julian was quite within this rights
to do what he did.
> (Although you surmised
>that greg and maxb would). Can't we just:
>1. Fix the bug where 'svn version foo' acts like 'svn help foo'
>2. Add 'version' to the 'svn help' output
>and then later we can implement 'svn version URL' at our leisure.
>I'm -0.9 on removing it.
Please note, this was a prototype hack that never should've gone in in
the first place. My bad, etc.
If, as you suggest, we go and actually fix this to DTRT, we'll delay the
soak for weeks, not days. And as someone noted in another post,
svnversion vs. svn version vs. svn --version is truly weird. So let's
just rip this whole sad story out of the code and come up with a good
design for 1.3 (or even earlier, we can always add commands).
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Fri Apr 8 18:23:41 2005