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. :-)
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.
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.
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
asks.
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.
Let's try to not to flame the people we depend on to find our bugs. :)
-K
"Sander Striker" <striker@apache.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: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 13 22:48:46 2002