On Wednesday 21 February 2007 18:46, Mark Lundquist wrote:
> Matt Sickler wrote:
> > your best (and probably easiest in the long run) is to have the
> > devs read The Subversion Book and learn svn already
>
> erm, no... that's neither the best, nor the easiest in the short,
> medium, or long run. But thanks anyway.
Sounds like you're the one calling your content developers stupid.
Many of us think that users are people, and people are intelligent.
>
> > trying to mask the versioning from the developer is stupid
I've got a few answers that can help, but only for those who don't
beleive they have already dismissed my comments; or say they are
unhelpful without *applying* them.
Yes Mark, WebDAV/Autoversioning is the solution you were looking for
(provided the history is kept on a copy/move), but you've crushed
your own dream... and all on a trivial and incorrect assumption; "it
would require a profoundly different workflow, as every single file
write and every filesytem operation results in its own commit of a
new rev"
If you are relying (or insisting) on certain complex modifications
being in a single internal rev, you are not using Subversion
properly. Is there some reason why you cannot think of it the way it
was meant to be? After all, certainly a change to one single file IS
one single revision, and marked at the point of the file being saved
to disk. By your comment you are leading into the subject of
"tagging" releases, which has been quite thouroughly covered in
Subversion. Sure, what you need is an easy way for a person to push a
button to make the tag, and I agree that will be possible in some
GUI. Subversion is not about GUIs, and that is why you have a hard
time discussing the GUI you need on this list. It's just off-topic.
> It's not stupid. And these are not "developers". You don't get
> it. These users are Not Like Us.
What... what do you think that a developer is, if it is not one who
develops a document? It makes no difference whether that document is
going to be rendered as HTML, compiled, or just read by someone else.
You also were apparently not aware that Eclipse was not intended as
something only for editing source code. Eclipse, in itself, is a very
abstract framework for "developing" in general. One other example is
to develop graphical artwork.
> Me to you: what makes you think Windows has anything to do with
> this?
Easy: Andrew said, "users are users, we must learn to make our
products suit them, not make them to suit ourselves and then tell the
users they are stupid. already."
This approach is exactly what Microsoft tried. Did it work? Well, not
the way I define "work". Look at all those folks trying to use
Windows but believe they don't know anything about computers. The
minority (the computer literate) were disgusted with Microsoft
because the software did not offer the choice(s) they wanted. The
majority (what we call "Windows users" today) became mad at the
computer literate folks (whom they called geeks) because the geeks
were unable to make Windows work for the Windows users. So how have
they resolved the issue? To this day, many are still dishing out
loads of money for MS upgrades, hoping it will be solved "on the next
round". What is "it"? Well, that's the question, isn't it?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Feb 27 22:27:34 2007