JS.staff wrote:
> That's really sad, they need their butts kicking!!! All the more
> reason to mobilize a Windows user action group!
>
> FORK FORK FORK... grin.
>
> (or should I say /branch /branch /branch???)
Not a very good idea. Branching Subversion would mean that I'll have
even more work to do ;)
> (Direct action?? We can commit junk to their tree. That will speed up
> the implementation of the 'svn obliterate' command, LOL)
Do you have write access there? I don't.
> But seriously, I will start reading the Subversion lists. They
> obviously need some more Windows input. Anyone would think we were
> the 2% of the OS market... :0
You don't have to subscribe there. Just use your news reader and point
it to
news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.user
and
news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.devel
> About the .svn / _svn thing: point taken (although since every
> Windows developer in the known universe (almost!) uses VS, I think
> its weirdness should be taken as 'standard'). M$ do no wrong, of
> course ;)
If that problem came up earlier in the Subversion dev process, I'm sure
they would have switched to something like _svn. But when this first
came up, many, many people already used Subversion and had some big
working copies lying around. So by switching then, people would have
gotten angry because they all would have needed to do a fresh checkout.
> Would there be a performance penalty in having all these system
> folder in one central place, instead of in the working folders? Like
> c:\svn or something?? Is it logically sensible to have them embedded
> in the file system instead of in a nice db somewhere?? (yeah, that's
> a bit radical I know, and way outside the scope of TSVN).
There's an issue in their issue tracker about this. But it is _very_
hard to implement. And it would break the API, so it has been postponed
to 2.0 (API changes aren't allowed until then, compatibility rules).
> Whatever, I find it hard to totally blame M$ for this, when the guys
> at Subversion are asking Frontpage extensions (on a potentially live
> website) to conform to Unix naming protocols for hidden folders. It's
> kinda not suprising it doesn't work!! Anyone would think they didn't
> like Windows ;)
It's not a Unix naming convention. Ok, it came from Unix/Linux, but
Windows allows it.
I think it's also a political issue. If Subversion would give in and
change this, then M$ wouldn't need to change their program. And that
would be _really_ bad. First, it would make them even more arrogant, and
it could also go further to completely break Apache - which would help
M$ a lot because then people would be forced to use their IIS.
Apache uses filenames with dots a lot, e.g. ".htaccess". Now imagine
_that_ would break too!
And, it already "helped": in VS.NET2005, the problem doesn't exist
anymore. And according to some Subversion people who once worked for M$
and still have some good connections there it also was because many big
customers of M$ complained about it (_also_ because they couldn't use
Subversion).
So it already helped ;)
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Sat Aug 14 12:30:02 2004