On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:45 PM, Hyrum K Wright <hy...@hyrumwright.org> > wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Finally, in your new design do not forget about things like log -g and >>> blame -g, as well as the mergeinfo command. These features are all >>> necessary parts of a merge tracking plan and must have answers from >>> the first release. >> >> Really? I think we should take whatever improvements we can get, >> rather than saying "oh, and you need to support all this legacy >> baggage as well." While they are useful to some folks, I don't think >> they are can't-live-without-absolutely-must-have features. I'm mean, >> if we're thinking outside the box, let's think Outside the BOX, and >> try not to pigeon hole ourselves. >> >> It would be interesting to see the usage of 'log -g' and 'blame -g'. >> I believe Tortoise uses them as the default under-the-hood, so that >> probably inflates the actual usage numbers quite a bit. > > A new merge tracking design that does not support these features, or > at least have a very definite plan for supporting then, would be dead > on arrival. If the design does not support these options then go back > to the drawing board. > > These are absolute must have features.
With all due respect, that's not your decision to make. This consensus-based community gets to determine what are must-have features and what aren't. In reading this thread, it almost feels like there are two classes of merge users: power users and others, and they have different sets of requirements. Certainly it's not a discrete set, but a continuum. Unfortunately, Subversion tries to serve the needs of both with a single paradigm, and it's not working too well. -Hyrum
