Mark Phippard wrote:
> I am sure I could come up with plenty of valid examples where your
> preferred default is better and I know I can provide more where HEAD
> is better. That has been my point from the first post, there there is
> no single right answer.
Of course there isn't. I never claimed otherwise.
The proposals I'm making come from some years of observing otherwise
quite brilliant programmers breaking their heads against SVN and peg
revisions. They're not necessarily a personal preference. This is not
about my opinion vs. yours, it's about things I've observed vs. the
current status quo.
I want to fix the situation where it appears that, to the best of my
knowledge, the svn client is quite a bit harder to use than necessary.
Maybe you don't see that; I find that surprising given your access to
feedback from CN's customers that the rest of us don't have. I admit I
only have experience with deployments in two medium-sized companies,
apart from what I glean from comments in the FLOSS world.
Nor am I necessarily proposing a huge change across the board. I haven't
done a detailed analysis of all peg-affected commands, it may well turn
out that for most of them the current defaults are fine. But I don't
agree with the position that a universal consistency is more important
than ease of use for day-to-day work. I shan't quote Emerson ...
Subversion is a complex enough system, I don't think it pays to make it
even more inaccessible for a reason that, when all is said and done,
doesn't even save time in explainig why the defaults are the way they are.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-11-27 01:49:19 CET