"Justin Erenkrantz" <justin@erenkrantz.com> writes:
> What is the intent of these 'branches' when they get merged? AFAIK,
> there's going to be nothing in the mailer notification that shows what
> changed - except 'copied from checkpoints:rxxxx' and I find that a
> wholly bad idea. So, suddenly, anything in a checkpoint will not
> produce diffs. That is an extremely bad thing to me.
>
> BTW, I'm not a fan of making unilateral changes without discussion
> first. IRC is *never* a place to make binding decisions about how we
> as a group operate.
Can we just see how it works out? It's not like any real harm can
come from this, and it might do some good.
If it leads to things that aren't good, well, we'll notice, and stop
doing those things.
I don't think of it as a unilateral change, but rather as a way of
having exactly the discussion you're talking about. Whatever goes on
in there is part of the discussion, and it's also *the most efficient
way to have that discussion*.
Speaking as someone who just attached patch after patch after patch to
issue #2959 (because I wanted off-site backups and also not to keep
complex changes unnecessarily private), I could have done much better
with /checkpoints -- or at least, I would have liked the chance to
give it a try :-). (Personally, I wouldn't merge from a checkpoint,
I'd take the diff down and commit it as a new change, for example.)
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 13 09:54:52 2007