You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Edmund Wong <ed...@kdtc.net> on 2009/11/12 05:13:20 UTC
[PATCH] Adding mtime_spec.txt to the notes/ folder
Hi,
I have copy and pasted julianf's mtime functional specifications as
given by his post in the following link:
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2416479
It is a verbatum copy with only a few [TBD] changes. I've also added
rhuijben's suggestion of "merge" and philip's two questions.
There's also a lot of material on this issue from the following link:
http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2008-03/0462.shtml
It'll take some time for me to digest that post and change the
specifications in accordance to the commentary.
Log:
[[[
Adding mtime function specification to the notes directory for RFC.
* notes/mtime_spec.txt: Added.
Patch by: Edmund Wong ed{_AT_}kdtc.net
Suggested by: julianf
rhuijben
philip
]]]
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2416876
Re: [PATCH] Adding mtime_specs.txt to the notes/ folder
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
Edmund Wong wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been giving this 'patch' some thought and am wondering if it
> was necessary.
>
> I think the original intention of the functional specification post
> was to become a RFC. Would saving the functional spec to a
> text file and placing it in 'notes/' directory defeat its purpose as a
> RFC text since users might want to give their $0.02 without
> needing to checkout some text file?
It's no good asking lots of people to suggest quick comments on an empty
"spec": as you have discovered, lots of people have contributed lots of
comments to the discussions already. The difficulty is organizing those
thoughts and comments into a nice, tidy, consistent, understandable,
maintainable, learnable, user-friendly, configurable, and
chocolate-flavoured form.
What it needs is for one person to think hard about how to make a
feature that does most of what most people want it to do, without
leaving messy edge cases, inconsistent or unintuitive behaviour, and so
on.
Once you (or whoever) have written a spec that is your best effort
attempts to define such a behaviour, then we can ask everyone to
criticize it (look for inconsistencies, etc.) and then you can try to
fix the problems. When people generally agree that it's a good spec then
we say "OK, that's agreed by consensus, so we can do it."
When you have a first draft that's ready for soliciting comments (an
RFC), that would be a good time to commit it. (I would suggest a
subdirectory as there will likely be more than one doc.)
- Julian
> What's (for lack of a better word) 'bothering' me about this is
> the fact that there are a lot of comments as given in the link
> (http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2008-03/0462.shtml)
> and then there are the archives which needs sifting through.
> So a RFC isn't necessary.
>
> As I went through part of the linked text, I noticed that a lot
> of the discussions (including the patches as submitted by P.Marek)
> were inconclusive. I don't know, but I feel that the submitted patches
> might prove to be 'unpatchable' given the fact that it was done against
> the 1.1.1-era trunk.
>
> Perhaps a RFC is necessary right now, if not for comments but
> to conclude what has been discussed in the past and give those
> discussions some closure so that implementation of some sort can
> start(RFC now being "request for conclusions"). Then again, perhaps
> there are new 'ideas' to sort through.
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2417513
Re: [PATCH] Adding mtime_specs.txt to the notes/ folder
Posted by Edmund Wong <ed...@kdtc.net>.
Hi,
I've been giving this 'patch' some thought and am wondering if it
was necessary.
I think the original intention of the functional specification post
was to become a RFC. Would saving the functional spec to a
text file and placing it in 'notes/' directory defeat its purpose as a
RFC text since users might want to give their $0.02 without
needing to checkout some text file?
What's (for lack of a better word) 'bothering' me about this is
the fact that there are a lot of comments as given in the link
(http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2008-03/0462.shtml)
and then there are the archives which needs sifting through.
So a RFC isn't necessary.
As I went through part of the linked text, I noticed that a lot
of the discussions (including the patches as submitted by P.Marek)
were inconclusive. I don't know, but I feel that the submitted patches
might prove to be 'unpatchable' given the fact that it was done against
the 1.1.1-era trunk.
Perhaps a RFC is necessary right now, if not for comments but
to conclude what has been discussed in the past and give those
discussions some closure so that implementation of some sort can
start(RFC now being "request for conclusions"). Then again, perhaps
there are new 'ideas' to sort through.
Edmund
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2416973
Re: [PATCH] Adding mtime_specs.txt to the notes/ folder
Posted by Edmund Wong <ed...@kdtc.net>.
(s/spec/specs)
Hi,
I have copy and pasted julianf's mtime functional specifications as
given by his post in the following link:
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2416479
It is a verbatum copy with only a few [TBD] changes. I've also added
rhuijben's suggestion of "merge" and philip's two questions.
There's also a lot of material on this issue from the following link:
http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2008-03/0462.shtml
It'll take some time for me to digest that post and change the
specifications in accordance to the commentary.
Log:
[[[
Adding mtime function specification to the notes directory for RFC.
* notes/mtime_specs.txt: Added.
Patch by: Edmund Wong ed{_AT_}kdtc.net
Suggested by: julianf
rhuijben
philip
]]]
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2416895