Some things you could still do include - Make _concrete_ suggestions about what needs to be documented where.[1]
- Send a patch to svn_repos__validate_props() (and make your case that it should be applied) - Send a patch to the book - Send a patch to the relevant API docs - Publish your "properties migration" code for others to reuse. Daniel [1] If you answer "In a specification" I'll ask how it would relate to the existing API docs. Garret Wilson wrote on Sun, Jan 29, 2012 at 09:25:40 -0800: > The story ends this way: I've spent days writing migration code > which traverses the gigabytes of my various repositories and > converts legacy property names (the ones I've been using for years > over DAV+SVN, not knowing they were invalid in JavaHL) to "valid" > Subversion property names (according to the source code; there exist > no public specifications). > > Creating this throwaway migration code was many times over more work > than it would have been simply to loosen slightly the restrictions > in the Subversion client source code to be more liberal with > property names. On the other hand, writing this migration code was > many times over /less/ work than all the time and effort I would > have spent trying to get permission (or even interest) in modifying > the Subversion source code, or even to publish a specification. > > I did get a bit of constructive discussion to at least understand > the issue, and I appreciate the "+1" I received for the concept of > creating a specification and making property name requirements > consistent across clients. But I have been given no authority to > create any specification or modify any code, and I suspect that > three years later when I check back on the issue, everything will be > in the same situation it is today. In addition, there exists the > issue of legacy data created over DAV+SVN not compatible with other > clients. But with loads of work on my plate, and having migrated my > own data, I'm afraid I must be pragmatic: it's not my problem > anymore. > > I love Subversion, and I wish the Subversion development community the best. > > Sincerely, > > Garret > > On 1/23/2012 7:17 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > >On 01/23/2012 10:13 AM, Garret Wilson wrote: > >>By the lack of response am I to conclude that rigorous specification and > >>client interoperability are not considered high priorities on this list? > >Conclude what you will. But a more accurate conclusion might be "I've only > >allowed a single 'business day' for discussion of this thread, so perhaps I > >should wait a bit longer for folks to chime in." I can't speak for others > >of course, but I only *just* got around to reading your original post a few > >minutes before this your follow-up hit the list. > >