On Monday 28 March 2005 12:32, Max Bowsher wrote:
> The main problem is in the way you have presented this change, going very
> much against the conventions of the project. We want Subversion to be
> designed, not just grown in an ad-hoc manner.
Well, I had slept much better two years ago if someone of the core developers
had taken my hand and tell me how to implement that.
But as you've been very busy (which is understandable) all I got was some
discussion *what* should be done (and not done) - not a single trace of
And when Branko wrote
> Whenever you write a patch. :-)
I did just that, as I needed that feature.
That's the beauty of open source - just scratch your personal itch, and all
will be fine.
Summary: It's grown and not designed, because there was nobody to help me
> I have seen that someone else
> has already asked you to post information on the *design* of the feature to
> dev@. The point is, we want to agree on the design *independent* of the
> code. Unless you summarize the design, someone will have to
> reverse-engineer a design description from your code - which takes time and
> effort - and most committers time and effort is focused on getting 1.2 out
> the door right now.
Well, maybe I'm not the best judge, but for me (as an innocent bystander in
most of svn's code) the patch looks fairly trivial.
But that's not enough. I'll try to write a better (longer) summary.
> And 1.2.1, etc., would be patch releases - bugfix only, no new features.
> > (Same for the full meta-data-versioning; it has changes in the same
> > locations
> > as text-time, only the property names and uses are different).
> No way, owner-group-mode is *much* more complicated. For instance, does it
> protect the text-base file similarly?
As soon as .svn is 0700, yes :-)
But of course, there are several points which will have to be addressed.
> Ah, so you have seen that email.
> It helps a bit, but leaves much unanswered.
> For example... does it cover switch too? What value do you use with "svn
> propset"? And posting it as a brief mention in an unrelated mail to users@
> is no good - people on dev@ need to see it.
Sorry. I've been out-of-office. I just saw that mail before leaving for
holiday and answered from home. I'll never to that again, I promise :-)
And as the code is grown and not designed :-), I don't have an answer for the
"switch" case, as I don't use that very often - so it's just not tested. (But
I believe that it should work; and if not, it's sufficient to define
svn:text-time as a base-changing property, like svn:eol-style)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Tue Mar 29 09:56:54 2005