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

Re: Subversion Problem - How to save file modify time?

From: Jan Hendrik <list.jan.hendrik_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 18:43:50 +0200

Concerning Re: Subversion Problem - How to sav
Karl Fogel wrote on 11 Jul 2008, 11:33, at least in part:

> I don't understand why we're arguing so hard that this feature must
> never be in Subversion.
> It's fine to say "It's not important enough to any current developer
> to devote time to it." That's clearly true. It's also fine to say
> "If you want to hire someone competent to see this feature all the way
> through design and coding, then patches welcome." We say this all the
> time.
> But I'm a little surprised that we're so vehement about insisting that
> this is not useful, when we keep hearing from users that it is useful.
> It reminds me of all the years when CVS and SVN experts would tell
> people "You don't really need locking." Then SVN added a good locking
> implementation, and lo and behold, a lot of people use it.
> We could make the argument that mod-time-preservation would add too
> much instability to the code. But that's a bit spurious: first, we
> haven't seen the patch, so why would we be so sure? Second, we've
> incorporated lots of other features that don't appeal to all users and
> do touch a fair amount of code (look at all the different auth
> mechanisms we support).
> When I think about this feature technically, it doesn't seem likely to
> add much instability. After all, if we're willing to save the modtime
> in a property (an idea which Ben has proposed and which no one seems
> to object to), then how hard would it be to use the value of that
> property to set -- on platforms that support it -- the modtime of the
> working file on checkout, update, or revert? Are we really talking
> about rocket science here?
> I'm not saying that anyone needs to drop what they're doing and write
> the patch. I'm certainly not planning to. There is no obligation to
> do something just because someone's asking for it.
> But we also don't need to harden passive inaction into active
> resistance. If some developer were to make a clean patch to do this,
> I don't think we should turn it down on the assumption that it adds
> instability. We should just evaluate it like any other feature patch,
> and incorporate it if it seems good.
> If there's going to be a FAQ entry here, IMHO it should something more
> along the lines of what I'm saying here, not "We've discussed this and
> decided it will never be in Subversion". There are feature proposals
> that deserve that kind of unconditional rejection, but this is not one
> of them.
> -Karl


thanks a lot for these words, all of them!

Have a fine day,

Jan Hendrik
Freedom quote:

     Manche Leute halten den Unternehmer für einen räudigen Wolf,
     den man totschlagen müsse. Andere sehen in ihm eine Kuh,
     die man ununterbrochen melken könne.
     Nur wenige erkennen in ihm das Pferd, das den Karren zieht.
               -- Sir Winston Churchill

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-07-11 18:43:10 CEST

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.