kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>So, this discussion about atomic renames and why they are/aren't
>important, and the follow-on discussion about merge tracking, are
>exactly why I didn't propose atomic renames for 1.3 or 1.4 :-).
>
>Locking was big partly because it involved a lot of design discussion.
>Atomic renames will be worse, because it isn't just one problem, its
>scope remains to be decided. It *sounds* simple, but when you start
>to look at the problem, you realize it's not. We've already seen that
>happening in this thread, and we haven't even scratched the surface
>yet.
>
>
By far the largest impact of atomic renames will be on the client, in
the WC. I sort of wonder if we shouldn't schedule the WC rewrite in
parallel. It's about time, anyway.
>Those discussions are important to have! But they should also be a
>factor in our release scheduling. We just did a fairly complex,
>discussion-laden release; doing another one right afterwards would be
>a mistake IMHO.
>
>
Hm.
[snip]
>Another possibility:
>
>We could start the atomic renames discussion earlier, so that much
>more is decided by the time we get to 1.5. Usually my instinct is to
>avoid having multiple design discussions going on at once, but a)
>that's probably overly conservative, and b) it's only really a problem
>when all of the discussions are about things destined for the next
>upcoming release, which wouldn't be the case here.
>
>
We should start discussion on the hardest bits as soon as possible. I'm
fairly certain, though, that mailing-list discussions will never get
things as right as they should be. There's something to be said of a
whiteboard and three days' brainstorming. So. When can we do that?
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Apr 24 00:22:16 2005