You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> on 2012/10/09 20:46:24 UTC
Re: svn commit: r1396184 - in /subversion/branches/auto-props-sdc/subversion:
include/svn_props.h libsvn_client/add.c libsvn_client/client.h
libsvn_client/commit.c tests/cmdline/autoprop_tests.py tests/cmdline/svntest/main.py
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:41 PM, <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
> Author: pburba
> Date: Tue Oct 9 18:41:55 2012
> New Revision: 1396184
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1396184&view=rev
> Log:
> On the auto-props-sdc branch: Rename the reserved property
> "svn:config:auto-props" to svn:iprop-auto-props".
>
> First and foremost this is to address cmpilato's concerns, see
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2012-10/0097.shtml But it is also a bit of
> bike-shedding; since the old name contained the word "config" it needlessly
> conflated itself with the config file which is home of the traditional
> auto-props. I think the new name makes it clearer that these auto-props
> are outside of the config file.
I liked the use of "config" precisely because this property IS
somewhat connected to what is in that file. I am not against dropping
config, but if we do, then I would also drop iprop and just make the
property be svn:auto-props
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Re: svn commit: r1396184 - in /subversion/branches/auto-props-sdc/subversion:
include/svn_props.h libsvn_client/add.c libsvn_client/client.h
libsvn_client/commit.c tests/cmdline/autoprop_tests.py tests/cmdline/svntest/main.py
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:41 PM, <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> Author: pburba
>>>> Date: Tue Oct 9 18:41:55 2012
>>>> New Revision: 1396184
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1396184&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> On the auto-props-sdc branch: Rename the reserved property
>>>> "svn:config:auto-props" to svn:iprop-auto-props".
>>>>
>>>> First and foremost this is to address cmpilato's concerns, see
>>>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2012-10/0097.shtml But it is also a bit of
>>>> bike-shedding; since the old name contained the word "config" it needlessly
>>>> conflated itself with the config file which is home of the traditional
>>>> auto-props. I think the new name makes it clearer that these auto-props
>>>> are outside of the config file.
>>>
>>> I liked the use of "config" precisely because this property IS
>>> somewhat connected to what is in that file. I am not against dropping
>>> config, but if we do, then I would also drop iprop and just make the
>>> property be svn:auto-props
>
> I shy away from 'svn:auto-props' because eventually we'll have some
> sort of ignores-server-dictated-config via inheritable props and
> svn:ignore is already taken, so we probably want some common prefix to
> this class of inheritable properties.
I was going to mention that, but remembering the name of the setting
in config I assumed we would just name the new property
svn:global-ignores
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Re: svn commit: r1396184 - in /subversion/branches/auto-props-sdc/subversion:
include/svn_props.h libsvn_client/add.c libsvn_client/client.h
libsvn_client/commit.c tests/cmdline/autoprop_tests.py tests/cmdline/svntest/main.py
Posted by Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> On 10/09/2012 03:30 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
>>> I don't like the term "iprop" (assuming that stands for "inheritable
>>> property"), because as I understood it all properties are inheritable
>>> (and it's up to the "user" of that property to decide to use it in an
>>> inheritable manner or not).
>>
>> Sure, it's up to the user, caller, script, etc., but this is a
>> reserved property that Subversion itself will always consider
>> inheritable, so I don't believe "iprop" is misleading in any way.
>
> [Just painting the bike shed.]
>
> In retrospect, I think "svn:config-" betrays too much of the origins of the
> feature. Were we designing this feature from the get-go, having *not*
> already passed through lines of thought that included such phrases as
> "server-dictated configuration", I doubt we'd wind up here.
>
> I like where you're going with "iprop" -- telling the user right up front
> that this sucker is inheritable. I just don't like "iprop" because it
> sounds like a brand name for a line of faux Apple computers used in
> furniture showrooms.
Point taken :-)
> Just kidding, but seriously, a new user will have no
> idea what the "i" in "iprops" is for. I'd suggest just being explicit, if
> verbose, and going with "svn:inheritable-auto-props" (and
> "svn:inheritable-ignores", and ...).
+1
I like that color.
--
Paul T. Burba
CollabNet, Inc. -- www.collab.net -- Enterprise Cloud Development
Skype: ptburba
> --
> C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
Re: svn commit: r1396184 - in /subversion/branches/auto-props-sdc/subversion:
include/svn_props.h libsvn_client/add.c libsvn_client/client.h libsvn_client/commit.c
tests/cmdline/autoprop_tests.py tests/cmdline/svntest/main.py
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
On 10/09/2012 03:30 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
>> I don't like the term "iprop" (assuming that stands for "inheritable
>> property"), because as I understood it all properties are inheritable
>> (and it's up to the "user" of that property to decide to use it in an
>> inheritable manner or not).
>
> Sure, it's up to the user, caller, script, etc., but this is a
> reserved property that Subversion itself will always consider
> inheritable, so I don't believe "iprop" is misleading in any way.
[Just painting the bike shed.]
In retrospect, I think "svn:config-" betrays too much of the origins of the
feature. Were we designing this feature from the get-go, having *not*
already passed through lines of thought that included such phrases as
"server-dictated configuration", I doubt we'd wind up here.
I like where you're going with "iprop" -- telling the user right up front
that this sucker is inheritable. I just don't like "iprop" because it
sounds like a brand name for a line of faux Apple computers used in
furniture showrooms. Just kidding, but seriously, a new user will have no
idea what the "i" in "iprops" is for. I'd suggest just being explicit, if
verbose, and going with "svn:inheritable-auto-props" (and
"svn:inheritable-ignores", and ...).
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
Re: svn commit: r1396184 - in /subversion/branches/auto-props-sdc/subversion:
include/svn_props.h libsvn_client/add.c libsvn_client/client.h
libsvn_client/commit.c tests/cmdline/autoprop_tests.py tests/cmdline/svntest/main.py
Posted by Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:55 PM, Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:41 PM, <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Author: pburba
>>> Date: Tue Oct 9 18:41:55 2012
>>> New Revision: 1396184
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1396184&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> On the auto-props-sdc branch: Rename the reserved property
>>> "svn:config:auto-props" to svn:iprop-auto-props".
>>>
>>> First and foremost this is to address cmpilato's concerns, see
>>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2012-10/0097.shtml But it is also a bit of
>>> bike-shedding; since the old name contained the word "config" it needlessly
>>> conflated itself with the config file which is home of the traditional
>>> auto-props. I think the new name makes it clearer that these auto-props
>>> are outside of the config file.
>>
>> I liked the use of "config" precisely because this property IS
>> somewhat connected to what is in that file. I am not against dropping
>> config, but if we do, then I would also drop iprop and just make the
>> property be svn:auto-props
I shy away from 'svn:auto-props' because eventually we'll have some
sort of ignores-server-dictated-config via inheritable props and
svn:ignore is already taken, so we probably want some common prefix to
this class of inheritable properties.
> +1.
>
> I don't like the term "iprop" (assuming that stands for "inheritable
> property"), because as I understood it all properties are inheritable
> (and it's up to the "user" of that property to decide to use it in an
> inheritable manner or not).
Sure, it's up to the user, caller, script, etc., but this is a
reserved property that Subversion itself will always consider
inheritable, so I don't believe "iprop" is misleading in any way.
Regardless, I don't feel very strongly about this one way or the
other. Barring any prop-"iprop" feedback I'll switch it to
'svn:config-auto-props' in the near future.
--
Paul T. Burba
CollabNet, Inc. -- www.collab.net -- Enterprise Cloud Development
Skype: ptburba
> --
> Johan
Re: svn commit: r1396184 - in /subversion/branches/auto-props-sdc/subversion:
include/svn_props.h libsvn_client/add.c libsvn_client/client.h
libsvn_client/commit.c tests/cmdline/autoprop_tests.py tests/cmdline/svntest/main.py
Posted by Johan Corveleyn <jc...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 8:46 PM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:41 PM, <pb...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Author: pburba
>> Date: Tue Oct 9 18:41:55 2012
>> New Revision: 1396184
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1396184&view=rev
>> Log:
>> On the auto-props-sdc branch: Rename the reserved property
>> "svn:config:auto-props" to svn:iprop-auto-props".
>>
>> First and foremost this is to address cmpilato's concerns, see
>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2012-10/0097.shtml But it is also a bit of
>> bike-shedding; since the old name contained the word "config" it needlessly
>> conflated itself with the config file which is home of the traditional
>> auto-props. I think the new name makes it clearer that these auto-props
>> are outside of the config file.
>
> I liked the use of "config" precisely because this property IS
> somewhat connected to what is in that file. I am not against dropping
> config, but if we do, then I would also drop iprop and just make the
> property be svn:auto-props
+1.
I don't like the term "iprop" (assuming that stands for "inheritable
property"), because as I understood it all properties are inheritable
(and it's up to the "user" of that property to decide to use it in an
inheritable manner or not).
--
Johan