On Fri, 14 Dec 2018, 05:41 Nathan Hartman <hartman.nathan_at_gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 11:59 AM Branko Čibej <brane_at_apache.org> wrote:
>> I never said that it's a good idea to abort in a library. We made a
>> mistake in the early days of this project to allow such patterns.
>> I am quite angry at the contrariness and stubbornness of one TSVN
>> developer, who is *also* a Subversion PMC member.
> I propose a compromise.
> Remove this mistake in 2.0, when API/ABI compatibility with old mistakes
> no longer applies, but meanwhile improve the message in TSvn.
"Compromise" is not the issue. Attitude is.
Waiting for 2.0 isn't necessary, either. Stuff can be fixed before that.
> Just to be clear, I *don't* propose to make the jump to 2.0 anytime soon,
> nor to do so in haste. But I do propose the need for a Confluence page to
> start the conversation about what 2.0 should be. Right now I can think of
> two things for that page: (1) composing a new statement of Subversion's
> goal for 2.0 (being a better CVS is just so 1.0), and (2) a list of old
> mistakes that should be fixed at the turn of the major version number, like
> this abort() thing.
Mission statements are marketing sugar-coating that I have no talent for.
As for 2.0 ... The only reason to ever make such a release would be to
remove irredemably broken things from our API and protocols. There's
currently nothing of the sort in SVN that can't be solved with
documentation, API upgrades and bug fixes.
Received on 2018-12-14 09:02:22 CET