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

Re: Medium-term roadmap: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5.

From: Joseph Galbraith <galb_at_vandyke.com>
Date: 2005-04-23 02:20:30 CEST

Philip Martin wrote:
> John Szakmeister <john@szakmeister.net> writes:
>
>
>>On Friday 22 April 2005 17:31, David Summers wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 kfogel@collab.net 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.

Thanks,

Joseph

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 23 03:21:52 2005

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