On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 5:16 AM Daniel Sahlberg <daniel.l.sahlb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Den fre 11 mars 2022 kl 11:04 skrev Julian Foad <julianf...@apache.org>: >> >> Daniel Sahlberg wrote: >> > I'm taking an opposite position with regards on where this should be >> > administred. [...] I would prefer a multi-level approach where the >> > repository (through svn:foo properties) could suggest pristine-less WC >> >> I understand completely your case, but the solution you need is a way to >> configure your client's behaviour remotely, and that is not necessarily >> best done by Subversion versioned properties. Do you see the >> distinction? Rather, what you need is for client configuration to be >> managed centrally and obeyed by your clients. The server and clients >> involved *could* be your Subversion repository server and Subversion >> clients, but could alternatively be some other mechanism. You just need >> some mechanism that works and is easy enough to deploy. > > > I do see that distinction and I completely agree with your analysis. > > My position is that svn properties is the easiest way for me to distribute > this kind of client configuration (we could call it "client hints"). If there > is a majority that Subversion should not provide that, then I won't stand in > the way of consensus. > > There are a lot of other options as well to configure the clients, AD group > policies probably being the most common in a corporate environment but these > have a higher bar to get started.
I agree with Daniel completely ... including not wanting to stand in the way of consensus. I think it just depends if you are more used to supporting "users" in the corporate world vs thinking like a super-experience *nix hacker like Karl and Julian. I also think that the primary use case for this feature is to offer better handling for large binary files. And regardless of whether you are a corporate user or an experienced hacker there is going to be very little use for storing a second copy of those files in the pristines. So I have always thought that a svn: property based approach makes the most sense for distributing this information to the clients. I would favor making it simple for the user and if you really have strong beliefs that the client should have full control then allow a power-user to have options to override those defaults. Again ... I do not want to stand in the way of consensus or alter the MVP. Like Daniel, I am just saying let's not shut down the possibility of this approach in the future. Mark
