Philip Martin wrote:
> John Szakmeister <email@example.com> writes:
>>On Friday 22 April 2005 17:31, David Summers wrote:
>>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>>> 1.3: Server->client configuration transmission.
>>>> 1.4: Operation logging.
>>>> 1.5: TBD, see below
>>>> I'd really like to see atomic
>>>> renames (issue #898 and possibly #895) tackled here, partly
>>>> because that seems a prerequisite for any merge-tracking
>>>> features (which is a whole other topic), and partly because
> I don't really see why atomic renames are a prerequisite for merge
> tracking. Atomic rename makes it easier to track renames, but copy
> with history will still exist as a valid operation and merge tracking
> is going to have to handle that as well. We could implement merge
> tracking without atomic renames. I suppose the pitfall would be that
> when atomic rename is introduced it might not fit into the mechanism
> used to implement merge tracking, is that a serious worry?
>>>> atomic renames are desirable in their own right.
>>>> Atomic renames will require some discussions, see issue #898
>>>> for the gory details. My guess is that it wouldn't force a
>>>> schema change, though, and therefore could be done before 2.0.
>>>> But maybe there are more important things our users are
>>>> clamoring for? Any thoughts?
>>>Personally, I would rank them:
>>>1.3 Atomic Renames
>>>1.4 Server->Client configuration transmission
>>>1.5 Operation Logging
>>>...but then I haven't been involved with Subversion coding, it is just
>>>my wish list comes out in that order. :-)
>>I'd rank them the same as you David. I'd really like to see the atomic
>>renames taken care of.
> Are atomic renames really that attractive, or is merge tracking what
> you really want?
Well, if you're letting us subversion users vote :-) In order
of highest value to lowest (to me, at least):
1. Merge Tracking
2. Atomic Rename
3. Operation Logging
4. Server->Client configuration transmission
So yes, I want merge tracking more than I want atomic renames,
but atomic renames is definitely more valuable than the other
two (to me.)
And since my understanding is I can't have merge tracking until
2.0, if there are going to be more 1.x features, and I can have
atomic rename in one of them, that would be my choice.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Sat Apr 23 03:21:52 2005