> I would suggest adding a new function for this purpose; and maybe a separate
> program to call it for our beta cycle.
Please... not another program. There was also a recent call for 'svn
upgrade' to be separate. It really sucks to have an installation smear
a dozen programs into your system ("which one do I use? for what? hmm.
for this? ... um..."). We already have a notion of subcommand. That is
normal, expected, and understood. We can continue to use that without
fear of user misunderstanding. In fact, it is probably best to tell
users "just use 'svn'. you don't need anything else". (administrators
are another thing, but we don't have to complicate their lives, too!
... we have too many executables)
> This code should never be necessary once we call the db stable. And making
> the normal cleanup very slow makes it less useful for its normal task.
Are you kidding? There is no such thing as "normal" when you're
talking about 'svn cleanup'. That command should take as long as it
needs to ensure that everything is good. Let me repeat: AS LONG AS IT
NEEDS. If people need to run 'svn cleanup' more than once a year, then
we've failed. But if they only need to run it once a year, then it can
goddamned well take as much as it needs to ensure that the user has
not lost any of their changes.
I find it absurd to place time constraints on 'svn cleanup'. The
better approach is to ensure it is never needed.
Received on 2011-05-10 11:18:03 CEST