Re: Classifying files as binary or text

Mike Samuel wrote:
> That said, it's hard to respond to nebulous claims like "one-off
> hacks", "maintenance burden", etc.

They're not nebulous at all. We could find many concrete examples,
well-documented in our code and in our mailing list archives. For now,
though you can just take our collective word for it that they exist.

> 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.

Mark just gave you an example where the chance of user surprise is very
high, indeed.

> 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.
>

Excuse me, which unclear semantics would those be?

-- Brane

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2417386
Received on 2009-11-13 04:33:00 CET