> From: Karl Fogel [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: 13 April 2002 22:53
> I think this is a little harsh on Sean, Sander.
> The one (minor) thing he could be accused of is ignoring the warning
> that Subversion is still mainly for developers. But lots of people
> ignore that warning -- and, after all, we *do* make the software
> available to the public, warnings or no warnings. :-)
True, but the warnings do matter. Lets not ignore them.
> His failure to get his own server running doesn't have to be your
> problem if you don't want it to be. And by sending a description of
> his troubles, along with suggestions for how to make things easier for
> users, he's attempting to do the project a favor. The worst possible
> thing he might have done is wasted a little bit of the list's time,
> but if so, he did it in a good cause, and I don't think he should
> publicly thumped for it like that.
There was some irc context that was lost here, causing my reaction.
That combined with me being a bit snappy (sorry about that).
> Regrading his actual suggestion:
> It's something we're going to have to do eventually. Most mature
> projects maintain stable branches to avoid exposing users to
> development features before volunteer victims^H^H^H^H^H^H^H testers
> have had a chance to shake the bugs out :-). But has Subversion
> reached that point yet? Nah, I don't think so either. We want anyone
> running Subversion to run HEAD, precisely so they'll encounter bugs.
Indeed. That is the point.
> I guess another way to put it is: right now, running Subversion means
> doing a favor to the development team. "1.0" is the crossover point
> for that balance -- after that, Subversion should give more than it
> Maybe that's something Sean should have known, or maybe it's something
> we should be making a bit clearer. But I certainly don't think his
> suggestion deserved anything more than a polite explanation of our
> current policy.
Ok, maybe I could have put it a bit more polite. Just snap the first part
of and see the part about trying to keep HEAD stable. We have warning
signs in our 'minefield' all over the place and reasonable (I've seen
a lot worse, especially for pre-alpha projects) installation documentation.
But maybe you are right and we should put something on the webpage or in
the docs about our current policy.
> Let's try to not to flame the people we depend on to find our bugs. :)
Lets just say I do not intend to do so ;)
PS. Getting some sleep. Hopefully that will help me turn back into the
patient helpfull guy I once was ;)
> "Sander Striker" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Sean,
> > Yes, it bothers me. I talked you through a subversion
> > server install some time ago and now you fail to succeed
> > at it yourself again.
> > You ask us to change our policy. I don't think that is
> > a reasonable suggestion. Most people are cluefull enough
> > to get subversion bootstrapped and running as a server.
> > That is, if they wish to run a server.
> > [I personally think it isn't even that hard, with all the
> > help in README and INSTALL. Then again, I am biased]
> > The first thing someone should do when (s)he is considering
> > subversion at this stage is read the FAQ:
> > http://subversion.tigris.org/project_faq.html
> > Specifically the question:
> > Is Subversion stable enough for me to use for my own projects?
> > I am glad to help people out with problems, but when I see someone
> > entering irc and asking:
> > "What is up with the screwball SVN - Apache problems all of a sudden?"
> > I get a bit annoyed.
> > Discouraging other people to run HEAD because you can't get it
> > to work is plain wrong. We do our best to keep HEAD stable
> > and succeed quite well at it.
> > Sander
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
> > For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Sun Apr 14 00:27:59 2002