subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From dlel...@rockwellcollins.com
Subject Re: How to change paths on an external file without a full update --depth infinity?
Date Wed, 14 Aug 2013 16:48:43 GMT
Ben Reser <breser@apache.org> wrote on 08/11/2013 09:54:43 AM:

> From: Ben Reser <breser@apache.org>
> To: Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel@gmail.com>
> Cc: dlellis@rockwellcollins.com, "users@subversion.apache.org" 
> <users@subversion.apache.org>, Ivan Zhakov <ivan@visualsvn.com>
> Date: 08/11/2013 09:55 AM
> Subject: Re: How to change paths on an external file without a full 
> update --depth infinity?
> 
> On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel@gmail.com> 
wrote:
> > I'm cc'ing Ben Reser (who has the above issue assigned to him) and
> > Ivan Zhakov (who recenty wrote a patch for this). Perhaps they can
> > shed some light on the current state of "RA session caching".
> >
> > As far as I remember from discussions during the Berlin Hackathon,
> > this was deemed too risky for 1.8, but perhaps within scope for 1.9.
> 
> It's on my todo to review Ivan's patch.  It seems like the best short
> term solution and is basically what I had already intended to do.

Hi,

Will this look like a 1.8.x change in your mind?  We are really sitting on 
pins and needles with excitement for this!

I like Subversion - simple, powerful, and light weight. 

I've been a part of many trade studies over the years looking at how 
different groups choose the config mgmt tool of their choice (CC, CMVC, 
PVCS, Git, SVN, etc. have all been used).  When it comes to product line 
strategy, the trade studies have typically given low marks to Subversion 
based on external performance (and certainly other open tools for other 
reasons too). 

Typically the results of these trade studies never get flowed back out as 
to why a tool wasn't chosen.  I'm now seeing that this is unfortunate for 
open tools as they may not always see the desires of certain industries. 
In this case, as a new person to the SVN community, I admit I was 
surprised to see that the chatter within the SVN community didn't match 
the chatter I've been hearing for years among the various organizations 
within my company (we're fairly large ~20k ppl and of which the different 
organizations are largely independent and focused on vary different 
products yet we came to the same conclusions - externals are invaluable, 
yet painful). 

I believe that if we can improve external performance (speed and 
integration -- like handling externals when depth != infinity), not only 
would we help the current users of SVN that have come to accept this, but 
we would have a huge opportunity to get back on the radar of other users 
that have previously chosen other options.

I completely appreciate the work you all do, SVN is a great tool.  This is 
just some feedback from a user group that I'm concerned you may not have 
from properly.

Going forward, I think a takeaway for me is that as industry uses open 
source tools and subsequently performs trade studies on those tools, its 
important to provide feedback to the open source community.  Its not 
especially fair to use and not contribute in some form.

I'm willing to help perform informal testing or in other tasks that could 
be useful.

Thanks,
Dan

Mime
View raw message