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

Re: help me show others that there are valid reasons for not supporting a $log$ keyword!

From: Andy Levy <andy.levy_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2008 15:32:54 -0400

On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 15:29, Ryan Schmidt
<subversion-2008c_at_ryandesign.com> wrote:
> On Sep 16, 2008, at 11:04 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>> Quoting "Reedick, Andrew":
>>> What is the goal/purpose/benefit of the log? If SVN can provide or meet
>>> that goal/purpose/benefit, then it shouldn't matter how it's implemented.
>>> Don't force the Old Inefficient Ways on New Tools.
>> that will *not* be a compelling argument. the normal response to
>> that is, "but it won't *hurt*, will it?" when people are absolutely
>> entrenched in their ways, it is not enough to show that some old
>> habit no longer has any value. you have to go further and show that
>> it actually *harms* the process, however you want to do that.
>> trust me, i've been down this road before. you need to demonstrate
>> actual harm. if you can't, you're going to lose this one.
> My argument would be:
> Subversion does not have the function in question ($Log$ in source). The
> developers of Subversion will not implement it or accept a patch which
> implements it. So you can either waste a lot of time implementing it
> yourself and maintaining it forever, or you can understand why it's not a
> good idea and do something else that is supported. :-)

I suspect, from what the OP has written, that his management will opt
for the former if you give them any possible opening to squeeze

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-09-16 21:33:19 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.