On Fri, 2005-05-20 at 10:31 -0500, Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
> 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.
We can get all the usage benefits of inherited properties without
sacrificing severability; it just means we get none of the performance
benefits on the client side.
I'm not sure anyone is wedded to working copy severability, but I
suspect there are several of us (certainly, myself included) who would
consider it very poor form to drop that feature during 1.x.
We could virtualize the working copy library and design a new working
copy format which isn't severable, to be used optionally at checkout
time, but that's an even more major undertaking than inheritable
properties since there are a bunch of other improvements we'd want to
design in at the same time. Also, if we virtualize the working copy
library we have to figure out how we will detect what kind of working
copy we're operating on when a user does something like "svn update".
And we'd be constrained to the current libsvn_wc API, which may be
simply too constraining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 20 18:49:10 2005