[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Handling of .svn

From: Erik Huelsmann <ehuels_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:30:05 +0200

On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 12:10 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> wrote:
> Charles Acknin wrote:
> > I don't think he is, there's been talk about wc-ng and you'll find a
> > design note in notes/wc-ng-design.
> >
> >
> Yes, I skimmed over that and frankly it looks like another
> "not-invented-here" reflex. So I've reserved my comments until I have more
> time to really dig into that.

Well, as things stand, *any* direction is better than continuing with
the current code. We have *53* issues outstanding which can't be
solved in the current framework (for the most part). It could be that
some developers are devining inferior solutions, but then again: we
had this developer which had the layout for the perfect working copy
all in his had. He promised to write it all down for about a year and
a half, then left the project. Now he's allegedly back, but possibly
he's still lacking time to do what it takes on this front. That noted,
I think the other developers are still anxious to leave the current wc
behind and are taking faith into their own hands. Sounds plausible,

> I'm really worried that we'd get a new WC that assumes the current
> repository model with all its quirks, and have to do yet another new WC for
> svn-2.0.

It wouldn't be new to have to invent the same thing several times:
Most people learn and develop incrementally. For me, that's perfectly

Any comments on the doc are very much welcomed btw: some have studied
other versioning systems, some have studied the problems in our own.
Together we should be able to put something good (or even great)


Received on 2008-04-03 13:30:24 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.