On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 05:57 -0400, John Peacock wrote:
> However, when I was thinking about how to answer your e-mail, I finally figured
> out what was really bothering me about the server-hook: it requires maintaining
> meta-data about the contents of the repository outside of the repository itself.
>
> Let me preface this by saying I know it is possible to version the hooks folder;
> that's not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is specifically
> that, in the more complicated scenarios above, the paths to which certain
> log-templates apply must be hard-coded in the hook script itself. Rather than
> having the template emerge directly from the repository itself, that metadata
> must be manually encoded into the hook script, which can lend itself to mistakes
> (e.g. after a major reorganization).
Hmm. This is an excellent point.
> I think that it is far too early to abandon inherited properties as "too hard"
> since it permits a number of valuable emergent behaviors, not only for log
> templates but for many of the other "server-resident" config features which
> people have been longing for. I just don't think we should close off discussion
> of a more general solution in favor of a simple solution for log-templates
> (which may or may not be the first order of business for 1.3 in any case).
Agreed. However, I think that if we want to do inherited properties
right we're going to have to look long and hard at how important it is
to support detachable directories in working copies. This seems to the
be a wc feature that some folks are unwilling to sacrifice, but it also
seems to the biggest obstacle to doing inherited properties in a non-
kludgey manner.
-Fitz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 20 17:35:06 2005