On 30 Apr 2005 13:02:52 -0500, kfogel@collab.net <kfogel@collab.net> wrote:
> Looking over the responses to the roadmap proposal, I think they can
> mostly be summarized as: "Do atomic renames sooner!" :-)
>
> I feel strongly that trying to put "atomic renames" all in one
> milestone would be a mistake. As even the preliminary discussions
> have shown, it is not a trivial problem.
>
> The key (ironically enough, I guess) is to break atomic renames up
> into discrete subtasks as much as we can. Fortunately, there's an
> obvious place to start: implement atomic renames in the repository.
> We wouldn't worry about the working copy at first. It would still
> receive renames as it currently does, and the only gateway to the new
> functionality would be 'svn mv URL1 URL2'. But it would be an
> important first step and -- obviously, IMHO -- a prerequisite for
> further atomic rename functionality.
>
> (This is essentially what issue #898 is now, I think, although #898
> did not start out that way.)
>
> So below is a new proposal, similar to the previous one, but starting
> the renames work much sooner -- the first piece would happen in 1.3.
What you see here is a often requested feature which IMO comes from a
much larger issue. I think we should do an interim release to clean
out the issue tracker. No glorious new features, just bugfixes. This
release should address the rename problem, schedule-add-with-history
and a few others which can seriously mess up day-to-day work with svn.
Surely, if 1.3 were to be that release, it will include neon 0.25
too.
What do you think?
bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue May 3 10:35:12 2005