[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: RFC: Standardizing a 'svn:branch' (boolean) property

From: Branko ─îibej <brane_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2012 11:07:31 +0200

On 17.07.2012 07:14, Trent Nelson wrote:
[a description of Enversion]

Thanks, Trent -- this was a very good description.

So what we have here is a tool that provides additional branch semantics
on top of Subversion's data model and controls commits to protect the
repository against several kinds of changes that break its assumptions.
Which is fine.

Now can someone explain to me why we would want to duplicate Enversion's
functionality in Subversion, given that it's already available under the
same terms as Subversion itself? And if you want to implement just a
subset of what Enversion does, can you guarantee that it's in fact a
safe subset?

I got the feeling that Enversion pretty much has the minimal set of
features it requires; anything less would be incomplete and therefore
cause no end of problems. But it /does/ restrict what Subversion can do,
and for a separate tool, that's not a problem. However, if you want to
implement something similar in Subversion, you'll end up either making a
whole slew of complex features optional, or break backward compatibility.

-- Brane

-- 
Certified & Supported Apache Subversion Downloads:
http://www.wandisco.com/subversion/download
Received on 2012-07-17 11:08:10 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.