Ben Reser <bre...@apache.org> wrote on 08/11/2013 09:54:43 AM: > From: Ben Reser <bre...@apache.org> > To: Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> > Cc: dlel...@rockwellcollins.com, "users@subversion.apache.org" > <users@subversion.apache.org>, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> > Date: 08/11/2013 09:55 AM > Subject: Re: How to change paths on an external file without a full > update --depth infinity? > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Johan Corveleyn <jcor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I'm cc'ing Ben Reser (who has the above issue assigned to him) and > > Ivan Zhakov (who recenty wrote a patch for this). Perhaps they can > > shed some light on the current state of "RA session caching". > > > > As far as I remember from discussions during the Berlin Hackathon, > > this was deemed too risky for 1.8, but perhaps within scope for 1.9. > > It's on my todo to review Ivan's patch. It seems like the best short > term solution and is basically what I had already intended to do.
Hi, Will this look like a 1.8.x change in your mind? We are really sitting on pins and needles with excitement for this! I like Subversion - simple, powerful, and light weight. I've been a part of many trade studies over the years looking at how different groups choose the config mgmt tool of their choice (CC, CMVC, PVCS, Git, SVN, etc. have all been used). When it comes to product line strategy, the trade studies have typically given low marks to Subversion based on external performance (and certainly other open tools for other reasons too). Typically the results of these trade studies never get flowed back out as to why a tool wasn't chosen. I'm now seeing that this is unfortunate for open tools as they may not always see the desires of certain industries. In this case, as a new person to the SVN community, I admit I was surprised to see that the chatter within the SVN community didn't match the chatter I've been hearing for years among the various organizations within my company (we're fairly large ~20k ppl and of which the different organizations are largely independent and focused on vary different products yet we came to the same conclusions - externals are invaluable, yet painful). I believe that if we can improve external performance (speed and integration -- like handling externals when depth != infinity), not only would we help the current users of SVN that have come to accept this, but we would have a huge opportunity to get back on the radar of other users that have previously chosen other options. I completely appreciate the work you all do, SVN is a great tool. This is just some feedback from a user group that I'm concerned you may not have from properly. Going forward, I think a takeaway for me is that as industry uses open source tools and subsequently performs trade studies on those tools, its important to provide feedback to the open source community. Its not especially fair to use and not contribute in some form. I'm willing to help perform informal testing or in other tasks that could be useful. Thanks, Dan
