On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:04 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote: > On 10/09/2012 03:30 PM, Paul Burba wrote: >>> I don't like the term "iprop" (assuming that stands for "inheritable >>> property"), because as I understood it all properties are inheritable >>> (and it's up to the "user" of that property to decide to use it in an >>> inheritable manner or not). >> >> Sure, it's up to the user, caller, script, etc., but this is a >> reserved property that Subversion itself will always consider >> inheritable, so I don't believe "iprop" is misleading in any way. > > [Just painting the bike shed.] > > In retrospect, I think "svn:config-" betrays too much of the origins of the > feature. Were we designing this feature from the get-go, having *not* > already passed through lines of thought that included such phrases as > "server-dictated configuration", I doubt we'd wind up here. > > I like where you're going with "iprop" -- telling the user right up front > that this sucker is inheritable. I just don't like "iprop" because it > sounds like a brand name for a line of faux Apple computers used in > furniture showrooms.
Point taken :-) > Just kidding, but seriously, a new user will have no > idea what the "i" in "iprops" is for. I'd suggest just being explicit, if > verbose, and going with "svn:inheritable-auto-props" (and > "svn:inheritable-ignores", and ...). +1 I like that color. -- Paul T. Burba CollabNet, Inc. -- www.collab.net -- Enterprise Cloud Development Skype: ptburba > -- > C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> > CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
