Re: Discussion of SCM_SVN Proposal

Quoting Clay Loveless <clay@killersoft.com>:

Based on my read-through of Horde's VC package, VC: - is still Horde-framework dependent

I don't think this is a valid argument since our goal with *all* of the framework/ packages is to make them as free of any dependancies as possible. Someone will do the work sooner or later regardless of what PEAR wants.

- has a fair amount Chora application-specific logic related to displaying output, validating input options from Chora interface forms, etc.

I'm not really sure how much of this there is, but it should be moved into Chora/cleaned up regardless of this discussion.

- is focused on read-only access to repositories

I actually have a patch around here somewhere to change that.

- requires repositories to be on the same server as the VC installation

That's actually untrue for the SVN implementation. It is true for CVS, but the API itself makes absolutely no assumptions about that.

Note: This is based on my assessment of the two packages in their current states. There's nothing saying that VC couldn't be adapted to support more features, and that the Chora and Horde stuff can't be removed completely. However, that gets into the overhead issue I'm talking about -- why go through the trouble of doing all that when VC and/or Chora could just adopt dependency on a PEAR Tools_SCM package that is free of all that from the beginning?

Because that's just a different, and much more bug-prone, kind of overhead. -chuck -- "Regard my poor demoralized mule!" - Juan Valdez