Stefan Küng <tortoisesvn <at> gmail.com> writes:
> Ph. Marek wrote:
> > Well, these properties *do* come from (a branch) of the subversion
> > libraries: the meta-data-branch. They were *designed* for use in
> > subversion - the feature is just not accepted yet (and might never be
> > - that's why FSVS was written).
> So you're saying that now that FSVS has decided to implement something,
> the Subversion developers have to kindly ask *them* whether they are
> allowed to use the svn: properties they want for their feature?
When I wrote the meta-data branches back in 2003 everybody was busy getting 1.0
finished; so I got no answer to my proposals, and just chose the names.
> Or if they want to use it, they have to do *exactly* the same as FSVS does?
No. Do you have any specific criticism with the names or the format?
But compatibility is always a valid reason - and there's "svntar" using the
meta-data-branch names and format, too.
asvn (in subversion's contrib/ folder) uses names "file:permissions",
"dir:devices" and "dir:symlinks" - which is even worse (regarding the
properties namespace) - and it came later: the first commit in the subversion
repository is from June 2004, whereas the first patches for meta-data
versioning were already published 2003
See also bug 1256 (http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1256)
for a timeline.
> Sorry, that's not a reason. The 'svn:' properties are for the Subversion
> project *only*.
Yes, and these properties *come* from there.
> > That's why the "svn:" prefix is used in FSVS too - to be compatible
> > with the meta-data branches of subversion!
> You can't be compatible to something that's not finalized.
I'd like to skip the discussion of "de facto" vs. "de jure" here.
I thought that avoiding such discussions are a major plus for OSS.
(Linux or *BSD introduce a new system calls, and if it's useful it gets added
to SuS - that seems to work.)
> I don't care about those: it's on a branch, not yet released. That means
> it's subject to change.
Why should it change? Is there some problem with the storage format?
Do you have any specific ideas how to do that better?
If I understand you correctly, if I send a patch to subversion-dev which
clearly documents the names and formats, and this gets accepted, it would be ok
> You don't get it. I don't care whether other tools misuse the svn:
> properties too. If they do, that's their problem and I hope they will
> get serious problems one day for doing so.
> Why do you think TSVN introduced the tsvn: and bugtraq: properties? We
> also could have used 'svn:' properties instead to 'encourage' other
> clients to use the same ones. We didn't. Because it is not allowed. And
> we follow the rules.
I did, too. I posted a patch, and got a branch and commit rights for that.
TBH, that sounds a bit like "And *WE* follow the rules", which I restate (in my
mind) as "You didn't". It may be just me, but I don't think I did something
wrong; for svn the prefix was clearly ok, and in FSVS I just used the already
defined (and used!) names.
> No, you don't need a trademark. To make these official, you'd have to
> contact the Subversion devs and ask them to mark those properties as
> final and documented in a release tag, not just in a design document on
> an experimental branch.
> > I hope I could convince you that they are not "illegal"; if I didn't
> > manage that yet, just say so - then I'll to ask some core subversion
> > developer about his opinion. Would that help?
> It would help, yes. (btw: I'm a full committer on the Subversion project
Yes, I know.
> - and you couldn't convince me :)
Seems so :-)
Maybe I'll try to get that names and formats official; whether TortoiseSVN
allows easier browsing of these properties makes no big difference for me.
But your users might like it ;-)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on 2008-09-04 13:09:14 CEST