On 8/18/06, Karl Fogel <kfogel@google.com> wrote:
> Daniel Rall <dlr@collab.net> writes:
> > Note: The most complete solution to many of these problems is to keep
> > a full, sync'd copy of all merge info in both WC and repository.
> > Considering that this would move Subversion from a centralized
> > repository towards a more distributed system, this is not something we
> > want to pursue (at least, not at this time). [1]
>
> I don't have good answers for the problems you posed (sorry, just a
> time issue at the moment), but I did want to question the article of
> faith stated above.
>
> Should a solution be rejected because it tends in the direction of a
> distributed system? If solutions to current problems push Subversion
> in that direction, it might mean that's a useful direction to go. And
> nothing will force us to go farther in that direction than we choose
> to, so why worry? :-)
It's certainly an interesting idea...
> (The reasons given in [1] are understandable... at some point we may
> have to ditch the detachable working copies, handy though they are.)
Honestly, I'm starting to think that ditching detachable working
copies is a reasonable step to take. An awful lot of good ideas break
down once you have them, and considering what the tradeoffs start to
look like, I'm not sure it's worth it to keep the feature.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 24 16:42:51 2006