-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Julian Foad wrote:
> Max Bowsher wrote:
>> email@example.com wrote:
>>> Max Bowsher <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>>>> Additionally, I feel that deciding that it is useful enough to warrant
>>>> installation on our own repository is logically irreconcilable with a
>>>> decision to keep the functionality out of the Subversion core code.
>>> That I don't get. *Every* hook running in our repository implements
>>> something we decided not to put in core Subversion. I don't see how
>>> this one is any different. Deciding to enforce certain log message
>>> conventions for our project doesn't mean we think all other projects
>>> in the world should use them.
>>> In short: huh? :-)
>> What I mean is:
>> As I understand it (possibly incorrectly), we haven't put this
>> functionality into core because we deem it to be of niche interest, and
>> not important for the majority of repositories.
>> Now, if we consider ourselves to be an example of a typical project
>> using Subversion source control (do we? I'd tend to assume we do), then
>> if we are interested in log canonicalization, that conflicts with the
>> supposition that log canonicalization is of niche interest.
> How do you respond to Karl's point that it's the same situation for
> every hook we run, yet presumably we're happy to run the others? (I
> don't even know what hooks we are running, but I expect you do.)
I don't, not in full, anyway. But for the two I do know of, I respond as
mailer.py: is different from this case, in that it fulfils a need that,
whilst common, has a myriad variations, instead of simply do/don't
verify-po.py: Fulfils a project-policy-specific need.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Cygwin)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Thu Mar 9 02:19:19 2006