Max Bowsher wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
>
>> On 8/22/06, Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
>>
>>> For what it's worth, I think it's absurd to be trying to put in UI
>>> changes at this point in a release cycle, especially when it's an
>>> interface that almost nobody is ever going to care about. All this
>>> can possibly do is stretch out the release cycle with virtually no
>>> gain.
>>>
>
> See my mail under separate subject line "r21207 (Renaming --no-svndiff1
> to --pre-1.4-compatible)".
>
>
>
>> At the very least, I believe that these changes should have been
>> discussed on-list prior to being committed. -- justin
>>
>
> I've only committed them to trunk. Reverting them, whilst not a course
> I'd prefer to take, remains a possibility - I've not committed us to any
> permanent course of action.
>
> In fact, I dearly hope that these changes will *not* be controversial -
> they are, after all, a simple renaming, to a name which I feel is
> better, for distinct reasons. Of course, I'm a little too cynical to
> believe that my hope will prove real.
>
> I acted as I did to stimulate a quick resolution to this situation, to
> minimize release delay as far as humanly possible.
>
I think this renaming is wrong anyway. Whenever there's a potential
compatibility issue, we always do feature tests, not version tests.
That's true of the autoconf stuff (mostly ...), protocol negotiation,
etc. etc. So --no-svndiff1 is actually more correct in this respect,
even though it may look slightly more confusing to the user. For
example, --pre-1.4-compatible could well mean "don't create BDB
repositories if you're linked with BDB-4.4". It's not as obviously
mnemonic as you think.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Aug 23 00:42:48 2006