-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sat April 13 2002 10:56, Sander Striker wrote:
> 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.
Yah, and if I were trying to build the same version of subversion, I'd agree
with you. However, the build instructions and the behavior of the entire
build mechanism changes from build to build, with no effort on the part of
the installer required to "break" something. I've been using the same
config.nice file for lord knows how many revisions now, but it fails (IE,
caused the problems I mentioned earlier) with 0.11.x. Your statements imply
that I'm having the same problems I had before, which I wasn't.
I'm not blaming subversion. The real source of the problems I encounter is
the fact that I don't completely wipe my subversion from my system and start
from scratch every time. Upgrading, itself, is the cause of most of my woes.
> 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.
The "policy" change you refer to is a trivial (and cheap, for subversion) two
line command sequence and a single change in the INSTALL instructions. I'm
not asking you to reimplement the backend as an XML based DB, Sander.
Yes, it doesn't take much clue-ness to installing a recent Subversion server
from the bootstrap, assuming that you don't have a previous version of the
server installed, and that you've got the right version of APR installed.
Upgrading can be more tricky, and more than just deleting the libsvn* (etc)
files -- which is where the INSTALL instructions stop (re upgrading). I'm
not quite sure whether you were saying in IRC that Redhat isn't a suitable
server platform for SVN, or just that it needs to be a recent version, but
regardless, the SVN project is going to have to expect people to have
problems with requirements like this unless you spell them out at some point.
Y'know, "Requires Windows XP" or "Does not work with Debian" would be in
order. Even "Tested on" and "Known problems with" would help, if you feel
that this really is an issue.
> [I personally think it isn't even that hard, with all the
> help in README and INSTALL. Then again, I am biased]
The INSTALL has been greatly improved.
> The first thing someone should do when (s)he is considering
> subversion at this stage is read the FAQ:
> Is Subversion stable enough for me to use for my own projects?
This doesn't solve any problems. This is a warning, meaning: "don't sue us if
SVN eats your sourcecode, or causes you to be fired." If you intended this
to mean: "don't bug us with your petty, stupid problems", then fine, but say
> 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.
Ah. I was wondering where all that angst and anger was coming from. I
assumed that IRC, being a less invasive medium, is a better place to check
first than on a mass-mailed dev list. I'm sorry if you didn't like my
phraseology. I've appreciated the various helps that you've given me in the
past. I probably wouldn't have said anything had I not noticed that I wasn't
the only one having SVN - Apache problems.
|.. "As for stability, we have three Windows 98 boxes that crash so
<|> often that my 3-year-old son now says, 'It crashed,' when I switch
/|\ a TV program off."
/| -- Nicholas Petreley
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Sun Apr 14 01:16:54 2002