Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> On Sun, 2005-10-09 at 21:15 -0500, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> > I agree with Max: 1 for now, 2 later. I don't think there's enough
> > time to get the fix into 1.3.0, especially with all the bindings stuff
> > going on, and it's clearly not a showstopper for anyone, since there's
> > a reasonably clean workaround.
>
> Doesn't choosing option 1 close the door on option 2 later? If we use
> the last path component as a repository identifier in 1.3, we can't
> switch to using a root-relative path without creating a compatibility
> problem.
Well, it's not a matter of "choosing" 1. The behavior which 1
proposes to document is already present in Subversion. Documenting
that behavior isn't an endorsement of bugginess, if we decide that the
behavior is indeed buggy. In fact, documentation is an opportunity to
*clarify* that we consider it a bug and that we might change it in the
future.
So either the door is shut on 2 already or it's not. Choosing 1 will
not shut it further, as far as I can see.
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 10 23:19:20 2005