[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: the obliterate discussion - why dumpfiltering is no valid workaround

From: patrick <Patrick.Wyss_at_mobilesolutions.ch>
Date: 2007-07-23 10:24:12 CEST

Karl Fogel-2 wrote:
> I feel like when someone says this, others somehow hear it as the
> developers saying "Talk to the hand!" or "Patches welcome!".
ok, i can see that this is not what the core developers want, and i accept
that, chances are that they end up with something they have to look after
for many years because the patch-poster disappears

still, i think if someone came up with a patch and he would say "look, this
would implement the simple case which i describe here" that would be a good
starting point for a discussion. (there have been people offering this in
the past)

> But it's not like that. We're merely pointing out that, for whatever
> reason, no one has taken this on. We're not against the feature --
> we're in favor of it. The way it will happen is when someone takes
thanks for this clarification. this gives some hope ;-)

> charge and starts a serious requirements and design discussion on
> dev@, and then follows through with patches. It doesn't have to be an
> existing developer, it can be someone new.
> (There have been some offers to fund obliterate; my recollection is
> that they just weren't enough money to do the job, but I could be
> wrong.)
if you are really serious about the funding issue (a.k.a vote with money)
IMO it would be a good thing if the fund collection would be linked from the
subversion FAQ which would give it an official touch.

> Running those discussions is hard. It requires a lot of patience and
> a talent for organizing and distilling complex feedback. But it *is*
> doable. We did it for locking, for example; see the archives for how
> that process went.
reading my OP (and the slightly whining tone of it :-]) i'm probably not the
one to do this. i think it need to be someone with a good insight into
subversion too. i didn't even think as far as that there are *two* FS (DB
and FSFS) which have to support the feature...

> Again, we want obliterate, at a general level. We just need a better
> definition of the feature, and that takes work.
i happily help here. as "Talden" already mentioned i think requirements/use
cases for the 80-20 solution should be distillable from the discussions.

should i do this and post it here?

View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/the-obliterate-discussion---why-dumpfiltering-is-no-valid-workaround-tf4116918.html#a11739609
Sent from the Subversion Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jul 23 10:23:14 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.