RE: Windows build severly broken due to read-only issues...
From: Jay Freeman \(saurik\) <saurik_at_saurik.com>
Date: 2002-02-10 23:48:53 CET
OK, is there any complaint about implementing a function (for now let's
*searches through back archives for this thread Philip mentions*
OK, I take it that means I'd be completing this little back-and-forth:
> (btw, for completeness, we'd also want ways to turn off readonly and
Agreed, it's just I have much less interest in writing those :-)
-- Philip ======================================================================= *debates making this a reply to the other thread* *decides against that as it may not have as strong an association with this thread* I agree with the previous comments by Branko and Karl from the Issue #532 thread that more thought needs to go into how this interface should be designed, however. Sincerely, Jay Freeman (saurik) firstname.lastname@example.org -----Original Message----- From: Philip Martin [mailto:email@example.com] Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 3:57 PM To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Windows build severly broken due to read-only issues... ... Expecting Unix developers to provide Win32 support just by thinking about it is not going to work. We need input from Win32 developers. Consider the read-only problem (which prompted the sermon) this was first raised last year. Since then there has been no Win32 code proposed to provide it. Not a single line. We had another discussion last month, and the Win32 issue was raised again. I asked for a possible Win32 interface (not an implementation, just an interface) but nothing appeared. I asked for a description of the Win32 filesystem behaviour, still nothing. So in the absence of any other input I proposed an interface, nobody said it was not suitable. In fact, the comment I got was "this seems the way to go". Now it is quite possible that the interface won't work on Win32. I don't know, I'm not a Win32 developer. Perhaps the interface is OK and it's the application code that needs to change, again it needs a Win32 person to point out the problems. Even better would be to provide a patch, but describing the problem will do. If a problem is identified I will try to fix it, but references to "sheer sloppy programming" do not encourage me. The changes in question did not come out of the blue, they were posted to the list precisely because I suspected that there could be platform issues. Within days of my starting to use apr_file_attrs_set an APR Win32 patch appears, so there are Win32 developers interested in Subversion. I guess that Subversion currently has more developers using Unix than Win32. I don't know how to encourage people with Win32 know-how to contribute, but I wish they would. Until they do Win32 support is inevitably going to be a second class citizen. I don't like that, I want Win32 support (and OS X support, 64-bit support, etc.) However it won't just happen, it requires appropriate developer interest. -- Philip --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.orgReceived on Sat Oct 21 14:37:06 2006
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.