On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> On 10/09/2012 03:30 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
>>> I don't like the term "iprop" (assuming that stands for "inheritable
>>> property"), because as I understood it all properties are inheritable
>>> (and it's up to the "user" of that property to decide to use it in an
>>> inheritable manner or not).
>> Sure, it's up to the user, caller, script, etc., but this is a
>> reserved property that Subversion itself will always consider
>> inheritable, so I don't believe "iprop" is misleading in any way.
> [Just painting the bike shed.]
> In retrospect, I think "svn:config-" betrays too much of the origins of the
> feature. Were we designing this feature from the get-go, having *not*
> already passed through lines of thought that included such phrases as
> "server-dictated configuration", I doubt we'd wind up here.
> I like where you're going with "iprop" -- telling the user right up front
> that this sucker is inheritable. I just don't like "iprop" because it
> sounds like a brand name for a line of faux Apple computers used in
> furniture showrooms.
Point taken :-)
> Just kidding, but seriously, a new user will have no
> idea what the "i" in "iprops" is for. I'd suggest just being explicit, if
> verbose, and going with "svn:inheritable-auto-props" (and
> "svn:inheritable-ignores", and ...).
I like that color.
Paul T. Burba
CollabNet, Inc. -- www.collab.net -- Enterprise Cloud Development
> C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
Received on 2012-10-09 22:34:53 CEST