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

Re: Classifying files as binary or text

From: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:29:04 -0600

On Nov 12, 2009, at 9:19 PM, Mike Samuel wrote:

> 2009/11/12 Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>:
>> On Nov 12, 2009, at 8:43 PM, Mike Samuel wrote:
>>> 2009/11/12 Branko ─îibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>:
>>> That's exactly what I'm trying to do :) Instead of dumping a patch on
>>> the list and pressuring people to accept my design because otherwise
>>> my coding would be wasted, I'm trying to be a good citizen and hash
>>> out the disagreements first. But I am leery of scope-creep -- I don't
>>> want fixing a bug to turn into a discussion about a new context
>>> sensitive merging system.
>> [ disclaimer: I know zero about the technical issues at play here, but I've done a lot of poking around in the Subversion code base. ]
>> I think the point Brane is trying to make, and one that I'm supportive of, is that as a community, we aren't comfortable with simple fixes which scratch a particular itch, but end up costing us big in the long run. Those costs generally come in the form of added maintenance burden down the road. I've spent the last year of my life coding around one-off hacks in the working copy library; it ain't purty.
>> That being said, it's great to see you getting involved with the community in working to address your problem. We want to help you, but with as large of an establish code- and user-base as Subversion, there's just a bit more thought that needs to go into even seemingly simple features.
> Agreed. I posted this idea for criticism and I think the criticism
> it's received is entirely appropriate.
> That said, it's hard to respond to nebulous claims like "one-off
> hacks", "maintenance burden", etc. I've asserted that this is
> updating the interpretation of svn:mime-type which is a
> well-documented standard and is widely understood by developers, so I
> think the chance for user-surprise is low. I've yet to see a
> refutation of that claim, and it seems clear to me that adding new
> property types with unclear semantics is exactly the kind of
> maintenance headache you describe.

Oh, I wasn't trying to make a judgement about the merits of this particular proposal, just warning against seemingly innocent implementations, which turn out to be much more toxic in the end. A voice crying in the wilderness, as it were.

[ As usual, I've learned this lesson through sad personal experience. See issue #3242. ]


Received on 2009-11-13 04:29:38 CET

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