Re: Subversion in 2010

[Julian Foad]
> > * No commitment to mixed-revision working copies.
>
> That sounds interesting, but I haven't got to grips with what it
> really means in terms of user work flows, and in what senses it is an
> important functional restriction versus an advantage.

That's one of those features I don't think I'd ever miss if it were
absent. I do hear about other people's use cases, of course.

> > * Full history of at least one branch is generally stored on clients.

I would add:

* No commitment to partial working copies. By which I mean both WCs
  that aren't rooted at the branch root, and sparse WCs. (I don't
  really use non-rooted WCs, but I do use sparse WCs.)

* No commitment to merging only part of a revision. This is another
  thing I wouldn't miss if it were not available. In other words I'd
  be ok with getting an error if I tried to merge revisions to a branch
  that contain changes in a directory missing in my wc.

Anyway, I guess I just agree that there are a lot of simplifications
they can do over in DVCS-land that we'd be very hard put to match - so
trying to achieve feature parity with DVCS on their terms is probably a
losing strategy.

-- 
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | http://p12n.org/