> -----Original Message-----
> From: Neels Janosch Hofmeyr [mailto:neels_at_elego.de]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 10:32 PM
> To: dev_at_subversion.tigris.org
> Subject: Questions from the Subversion 1.6 Preview event in Berlin
> Hi all,
> Tuesday saw the first day of the Subversion 1.6 Preview (in Berlin),
> organized by CollabNet and elego. Everything went well, and there were
> a lot
> of questions about new features and the immediate future plans.
> The committers present were Julian Foad, Stephen Butler, Stefan
> Sperling and
> me, and there were 20-odd attendees with corporate background.
> So I'd like to pass on some feedback and am hoping for comments that we
> forward back to those guys who asked the questions.
> There was a sort of eerie concern about wc-ng, in that it will change
> basic properties of working copies on disk. There was mention of some
> zipping whole working copies and sending them by Email, or storing them
> for later committing. Our general reply to those remarks was "use
> but people were insistent that some users will not be happy with making
> use of working copies any more complex by adding restrictions. Needing
> announce the rename or deletion of a working copy to a central database
> could, in essence, break a lot of people's workflow, blocking an
> After stsp broke down the main reasons for and benefits of wc-ng
> sanity, speed, concurrency, complex queries), there was some sort of
> "ok, we
> understand now". But, ...
Note that the default behavior of WC-NG will be to store all administrative
area in a single .svn directory in the working copy's root. This will still
allow zipping up a repository, etc. just like WC-1.0.
(There are plans for allowing the user to move the data entirely out of the
working copy but this won't be the default behavior, as there is no always
valid default location where we can move everything to).
The only major difference this introduce is that you can no longer copy a
single directory to another location an thread that as a separate working
copy. (But this is a far less common operation than moving or just copying
an entire working copy).
Received on 2009-02-25 22:52:23 CET