On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Finally, in your new design do not forget about things like log -g and
>>> blame -g, as well as the mergeinfo command. These features are all
>>> necessary parts of a merge tracking plan and must have answers from
>>> the first release.
>> Really? I think we should take whatever improvements we can get,
>> rather than saying "oh, and you need to support all this legacy
>> baggage as well." While they are useful to some folks, I don't think
>> they are can't-live-without-absolutely-must-have features. I'm mean,
>> if we're thinking outside the box, let's think Outside the BOX, and
>> try not to pigeon hole ourselves.
>> It would be interesting to see the usage of 'log -g' and 'blame -g'.
>> I believe Tortoise uses them as the default under-the-hood, so that
>> probably inflates the actual usage numbers quite a bit.
> A new merge tracking design that does not support these features, or
> at least have a very definite plan for supporting then, would be dead
> on arrival. If the design does not support these options then go back
> to the drawing board.
> These are absolute must have features.
With all due respect, that's not your decision to make. This
consensus-based community gets to determine what are must-have
features and what aren't.
In reading this thread, it almost feels like there are two classes of
merge users: power users and others, and they have different sets of
requirements. Certainly it's not a discrete set, but a continuum.
Unfortunately, Subversion tries to serve the needs of both with a
single paradigm, and it's not working too well.
Received on 2011-07-12 18:53:14 CEST