>From: "Ben Collins-Sussman" <sussman@collab.net>
>Sent: Saturday, May 29, 2004 9:30 AM
> I respectfully disagree. A vast number of readers have experience with
> version control, specifically with systems like Visual Source Safe. For
> this audience, copy-modify-merge is a new idea, and it's deliberately
> compared to lock-modify-lock because readers *are* familiar with the
> latter model already.
I'm not suggesting you avoid discussing how copy-modify-merge works, or even
what its benefits are. I'm suggesting that the comparison (i.e. debate)
over which is better belongs in a white paper, not the book.
> It's been exceedingly useful. A boss doesn't
> want to hear that "copy-modify-merge is popular", they need to be told
> why universal lock-modify-lock policies are harmful too.
Why? What does that have to do with a Subversion User's Guide? I'll
rephrase what I said earlier: The primary purpose of the book is how to use
Subversion, not which methodology is better (or even how to do SCM).
The problem is that you don't make a credible case in the book. Maybe there
are some pointy-haired bosses whose mental process is "If it's in print, it
much be true." I've been lucky with regard to bosses, because on the one
hand, they listen to my opinion with an open mind, and on the other hand,
they're not easily swayed by one-sided arguments. And anyone with
significant experience with SCM will quickly identify the discussion in the
book as one-sided.
> ... it should never be the default mode of
> behavior.
I can think of several situations where it should be, but in most
situations, it doesn't matter. There are much more significant criteria.
Gary
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jun 2 04:31:24 2004