Re: Where do CVS "descriptions" get stored?

Tim Landscheidt wrote:
> Michael Haggerty <[email protected]> wrote a long time
> ago:
>>>> [...]
>>>> If you submit a clean patch I would be happy to include it in the
>>>> cvs2svn source tree.
>>> I finally got around to take a look at it (despite your in-
>>> structions for dummies :-)); it works for me. Things to con-
>>> sider: [...]
> 
>> I committed your patch to trunk as r4962.  Thanks!
> 
> Thanks. I noted one small typo where you missed an instance
> of "svn:description" (cf. attached patch).

Thanks for noticing.  I just committed your fix as trunk r5031.

>> [...]
>>> 3. Regarding the choice of property name: I agree that we shouldn't add
>>> something to the "svn:*" namespace (at least not without clearing it
>>> with the Subversion project first).  But "dc:" seems rather obscure.
>>> The only property that we invent so far is called "cvs2svn:cvs-rev", and
>>> is set on a file to record the CVS revision number.  (This is not a
>>> recommended feature but it is still supported.)  So cvs2svn:description
>>> would be one possibility.  But I don't see why the description (or
>>> cvs-rev!) has anything to do with cvs2svn; probably more appropriate
>>> names would be cvs:description and cvs:rev-num.  Would you be OK with
>>> "cvs:description"?
> 
>> [...]
> 
>> I also made the property name used for CVS revision numbers changeable
>> by the user in r4967, though I didn't change the default.
> 
> As the property name is configurable, I do not object to the
> default, but wanted to share my reasoning for choosing
> "dc:description" in the first place: While "cvs2svn:cvs-rev"
> does have an undeniable relationship to CVS and/or cvs2svn,
> the description - as *user-supplied* data - belongs to the
> file (like its name) and its property name should not be de-
> pendent on the (previously) used version control system.

Yes, this is a good argument.  I still don't like dc:description because
there is no precedent for it that I know of.

Personally, I think "svn:description" would be the most appropriate
name, because the "svn:" namespace is owned by the Subversion project
and is therefore free of conflicts.  The description is no more or less
VCS-specific than similar properties like svn:log, svn:author, or
svn:date.  All of these properties are in the "svn:" namespace just to
avoid conflicts with arbitrary properties that users might want to set,
not because they are particularly married to SVN (after all, every VCS
has exactly analogous metadata).

So if you can get the Subversion community to approve the use of an
svn:description property, I would be happy to change the default.
You've convinced me that it would be more appropriate than
cvs:description.  (In fact, if you get consensus there for
dc:description or anything else, I'd be happy to go along with it.)

Michael

------------------------------------------------------
http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1670&dsMessageId=2441734

To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [[email protected]].