On Sunday 08 May 2005 15:49, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Thomas Zander wrote:
> >On Sunday 08 May 2005 12:26, Gustav Munkby wrote:
> >>if you don't have the revision in the subdirectories, then this will no
> >>longer be possible?
> >Thats right.
> >Notice that its an expert function anyway. Expert because moving
> >directories around in your IDE (or even filesystem) will horribly fail
> >revision management (as I have seen some former colleagues do).
> Ah. So you /do/ understand that your optimisation ideas would invalidate
> our core WC design decisions,
Again the defensive tone; svn has many design decisions that I have no idea
if those are relevant for all users (do you?). After talking on IRC I
gather that the whole handling of the points I proposed a couple of small
optional optimisations to, is in desperate need of a rewrite. And has been
for a long time; with mail-threads like these; where people attack ideas
without trying to grok the idea first, time is wasted where code could be
> and you're waving that fact away as
Where did I do that? Be serious here; I did not propse you drop this; I
just confirmed that in one specific use case old functionality will not
work anymore. This is normal in software development and is generally
called refactoring. You _could_ for example try to find out which people
this effects and make the functional change an option. (for example).
> How would you feel if I went on the KDE dev list with a proposal that
> KDE use .Net (O.K., Mono) for RPC, on the grounds that it's "obviously
> better" than whatever KDE uses now?
Ahh; the personal attack, how did we get here so fast? No technical
Please; keep your eyes on the ball and actually try to work together here.
Or be honest and tell me to piss off so I won't waste my time trying to help
svn become a better product for less-then-small projects.
Received on Sun May 8 16:50:39 2005
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored