On Oct 23, 2007, at 9:41 PM, email@example.com wrote:
> Micah Elliott <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on 10/23/2007 10:59:50 AM:
> > On 2007-10-23 Blair Zajac wrote:
> > > As somebody who runs an svn server for open source code and one
> > > for internal corporate use, I want to ensure that all svn
> > > clients that commit send merge info to the server and I don't
> > > want to loose this information. So I want to require that all
> > > clients that commit are at least Subversion 1.5 or later.
> > ...
> > This will definitely a useful requirement for me (now that you
> > thought of it :-). I'm also in a corporate setting with 100+
> > committers. We're waiting to do our CVS conversion until 1.5
> > since we'd hate to be without merge tracking.
> I'll do anything I can to stop our 1400+ users from shooting
> themselves in the foot. (Because they hit my feet too!)
This is interesting. I'm not raising an objection here, just
exploring: if you have so strong a need to protect your users, don't
you already have some other, more general means in place? Standard
installations, "scorched-earth sysadmin," that sort of thing?
The reason I ask: I've never worked in a shop that had such policies,
but when I've talked to customers that do, they definitely want to
control more than just the VC system. When Microsoft comes out with
a new Word format, for example, they tend both to pre-install with
the "write out in old format," and go around to existing machines and
re-install, to lock that in. How does that spin with your situation?
Do you not do that? Do you do that in general, but like the extra
protection of server-side verification?
Chief Technology Officer
8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 600
Brisbane, California 94005
office: +1 650.228.2562
mobile: +1 408.835.8090
raindance: +1 877.326.2337, x844.7461
Received on Tue Oct 23 18:52:01 2007