In all of the discussion about having a patch format which allows for
exchange of tree modifications to better fit Subversion, people come
up with a lot of reasons why the proposal on the table (there have
been more than the one now under discussion). One of those reasons is
that we should work with other projects to invent a cross-VC-system
format.
When I see comments like that, I have a number of questions. Let me
start out that I think the goal in itself is admireable though.
1) Do any of the other VC systems have a patch format which is able to
represent tree changes?
2) Do any of the other VC systems have a patch format which is suited
for code-review as well as changeset-exchange (as we're now demanding
from 'our' new format)
3) Do any of the other systems even try to be exchangeable with other ones?
If the answer to any of the above is 'yes', then shouldn't we
investigate how they do it?
And last but definitely not least, I'd like to add that solving the
problem for Subversion alone seems hard enough, as things stand. Also,
being able to exchange patches between VC systems has only marginally
more value in the short term than being able to exchange correct tree
mods at all. I guess this paragraph is a plea to start out small, then
when we succeeded we can take the next step: integrate the world!
bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Apr 1 13:04:54 2007