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

Re: svn edit

From: Steven Bakke <steven.bakke_at_amd.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008 08:49:25 -0400

On Oct 26, 2008, at 8:56 AM, Steinar Bang wrote:

>>>>>> "Ben Collins-Sussman" <sussman_at_red-bean.com>:
>> Right. Every three months we seem to repeat this thread. :-)
>> X: "How can we make the wc stop crawling huge trees?"
>> Y: "Wc rewrite is happening. There will be less crawling. And we
>> can add 'svn edit' eventually too."
>> X: "How does that work?"
>> Y: "It works like perforce. Thousands of perforce users love it."
>> X: "It sounds awful, I don't want that!"
>> Y: "It's always been planned as *optional* feature, just like
>> changelists are."
> Right.
> But it still sounds awful (and I don't want that (and I can't help
> myself from restating it, when the issue pops up)).
> Also I can't believe that thousands of perforce users love it. In
> fact
> I can't even believe that thousands of people loves perforce.

Not all users are using version control for mergeable text. Consider
the use-case where users need to operate on binary files which have
needs-lock properties. If adding 'svn edit' will enable a significant
performance improvement over the current situation, I imagine people
would be very happy. There are lots of perforce users that have
exactly that use case. I can understand why you wouldn't want it for
regular mergeable source code. Is it so wrong to have an optional
mode of operation? (in other words, it doesn't need to affect you
unless you want it to)


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-10-27 13:49:59 CET

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