[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: David Summers <david_at_summersoft.fay.ar.us>
Date: 2005-04-23 02:15:32 CEST

On Sat, 23 Apr 2005, 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?
>

Hey, I want it *all*! :-)

But it seems like merge tracking is a MAJOR (2.0?) issue while atomic
renames should be do-able in a fairly short period of time?

Seems like the logical progression to me......

--
David Wayne Summers        "Linux: Because reboots are for hardware upgrades!"
david_at_summersoft.fay.ar.us PGP Key: http://summersoft.fay.ar.us/~david/pgp.txt
PGP Key fingerprint =  0B44 B118 85CC F4EC 7021  1ED4 1516 5B78 E320 2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 23 04:02:56 2005

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