As a non-svn'er (although I do use it quite heavily for myself), and a moderately heavy cvs user, I am neutral on this specific change, although I do lean toward the atomic transaction of the svn side.
A non-binding -0 if this is for commons alone. A -1 if this would be apache-wide. The most important piece of information to me is the module/dir first, then the date/version second. Scott -----Original Message----- From: B. W. Fitzpatrick [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 10:54 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: SVN commit mail subject Rodent of Unusual Size <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > correct. i will make two more points and then shut up. the first > is that this threading model may be standard on non-asf projects > like svn, but it is a deviation from all of the other commit notice > scenarios in apache-land. Due to the fact that in CVS, revision numbers are per-file, and in Subversion, they're per-repository. Due to technical reasons, you *can't* do this with CVS's commit mailer. > second, i rather object to the people familiar with subversion > more-or-less forcing their opinion on the community because a) that's > what *they're* used to, b) it's what *they* prefer, and c) *they're* > the only ones who know how to change it. :-) How am I forcing my opinion on the community? I stated my preference and my reasons, and you stated your preference and your reasons. Cast it up to a vote and go with the consensus--that's the way to do it here, isn't it? It's not my fault if commons is littered with Subversion people who share my preference! :-) -Fitz -- Brian W. Fitzpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.red-bean.com/fitz/ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
