Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> wrote on 08/31/2005 03:43:09 PM:
>
> On Aug 31, 2005, at 2:39 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree. In that case, I don't think we have to wait for 1.4 to
> >> rip apr
> >> and neon out.
> >>
> >
> > Does this mean brane is "free" to post Win32 builds with the latest
> > Neon
> > now? I think a lot of people have wanted that for a variety of
> > reasons.
>
> I thought the issue was that svn 1.2 only supports neon 0.24, whereas
> trunk (1.3) now supports either 0.24 or 0.25. I don't see why every
> OS shouldn't use neon 0.25 with svn 1.3, assuming it's available; we
> can simply recommend that in our INSTALL file and spread the word to
> packagers.
Thanks. I didn't mean to cloud the discussion. What I was kind of
getting at is that by including a specific version in the tarball/zip
there is an implied "blessed" version. So, not including a specific
version is good or bad depending on how you feel about that going away.
Personally, it seems like a good thing.
Mark
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Aug 31 21:49:36 2005