2009/11/12 Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>:
> 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.
Those claims were aimed at my proposal, and I can't take it on faith
that my proposal is flawed since that would defeat the point of
arguing about design.
>> 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.
Quite right. I'll respond inline to Mark.
>> 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?
If you've provided a clear statement of the name of the new property,
values, semantics of those values, and how those would interact with
isText, I missed it. Sorry if I've unfairly maligned your proposal.
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2417389
Received on 2009-11-13 04:49:49 CET