Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote on 06/10/2008 10:28:21 AM:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 09:43:16AM -0500, kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com
> > Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote on 06/10/2008 09:10:41 AM:
> > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 08:52:23AM -0500,
> > wrote:
> > > > The biggest problem is users that use multiple clients. Think of
> > > > windows user that has TortoiseSVN, Subclipse, and the command line
> > > > utils installed. They must be smart enough to upgrade all at the
> > > > same time.
> > >
> > > Or just not use the same working copy with different clients
> > > written against mismatching versions of the svn API.
> > We have some projects with 40G+ working copies. Multiple copies
> > is not always an option. (Luckily these are not recommended
> > or the norm.)
> I see :(
> And I bet the people who created such ridiculously large working
> copies won't be willing to change their way of working, right?
> Or they might even be that large for technical reasons. But still,
> I think this use case may be a bit outside of what Subversion is
> trying to offer.
Yes, Subversion is being used for much more than just source code...
> > > If people really want to use so many different clients all
> > > at once with the same working copy, then they need to deal
> > > with the pain this can involve. If you tell your non-technical
> > > users to do this as an admin, then you need to deal with it.
> > I unfortunately do not have a lot of control how projects
> > combine and use the clients. I can't stop them from shooting
> > themselves in the foot, but I usually have to cleanup afterwards.
> That is bad, but it's really more of a social problem than
> a technical one. As such, I don't think it can be really fixed
> by changing Subversion. There are simply too many ways people
> can shoot themselves in the foot :)
I was mainly just venting. I have enough bullet holes in my feet,
so a few more won't hurt much.
> > > I'd be surprised if "not supporting working copy format bumps"
> > > was a design goal for wc-2.0.
> > "Better interoperability between working copy formats" would be a
> > nice design goal. There is no reason a working copy change needs
> > to require incompatibility with old clients, that is just one part
> > of the current design (that can hopefully be improved.)
> Yes, that's a desirable goal. I like the suggestion made by Marc
> Haisenko in another follow-up to your post. I'd need to
> spend much more time to think about it than I can afford right now
> before deciding whether it's feasible, though.
Yeah, his suggestion was what I was thinking but not articulating
well, if at all...
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-06-10 18:06:49 CEST