Re: Discussion of SCM_SVN Proposal

<stefan@neufeind.net> wrote : > On 17 Apr 2004 at 9:43, Clay Loveless wrote: > >> On 4/17/04 5:43 AM Pacific Time, Stefan Neufeind (stefan@neufeind.net) >> wrote: >> >>> I know that Horde is open towards PEAR and that the collaboration is >>> good. So I can't see why we shouldn't take the offer and try to make >>> Horde_VC (if needed a bit more pear-ified) part of PEAR. Horde could >>> still use the PEAR-package and ship it with their apps. And as soon >>> as channels become available they can even add a dep to the PEAR-code >>> *and* their Horde-packages. >> >> Stefan, as Chuck as already indicated earlier in this thread .. >> > [...] >> >> So, it doesn't sound to me like Chuck is interested in using SCM_SVN >> directly. As he said, it's open source, and he can crib ideas as he chooses. > > Well, that's what he said, yes. But there is already SVN-code in > Horde_VC, as it has been mentioned in the thread as well. And it's > also been mentioned that they had a hard time making the source as > good as it is today. So maybe adopting Horde_VC into PEAR would be a > good first step, and then you could help improving the SVN-part of > Horde_VC? This would imho be fine with Chuck - he just doesn't want > "another layer" ... so to say SCM_SVN and an abstraction-layer above > it all - which I can pretty much understand. Did you review Clay code ? Do you know Subversion ? Do you have the knowledge to judge what is good and what is not in that matter ? No, you just think Horde is good and if things work with Horde then it is good too. That's a bit basic IMO. If you want to work on Horde_VC, feel free to do so. Maybe you write code like chickens drop eggs, but for most of us, it takes time. I don't think you can decently ask someone to rewrite all his code to make it compatible with project X or Y. Bertrand Mansion Mamasam