On 3 Jan 2003, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> <rbb@rkbloom.net> writes:
>
> > On 3 Jan 2003, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> >
> > > Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:
> > >
> > > > Oh well, my hope is that you would have put this change in svn once
> > > > httpd/apr 2.0.44 was released, but who knows when that will happen.
> > > > It would be nice to say that svn .17 builds against 2.0.44. I guess
> > > > we'll see if we can make that happen again when we release .17.
> > >
> > > Actually, if we're ever going to fix bug 773, this means changing
> > > mod_dav itself within httpd 2.1. So I suspect that svn releases are
> > > now going to QA'd against the latest httpd-2.1 tarballs. :-)
> >
> > Are you serious? The 2.0 to 2.1 bump was completely arbitrary for httpd.
> > If you seriously need to move to 2.1 in order to solve a bug, then the
> > release model for httpd is horribly broken.
>
> If I submit a patch to mod_dav which *changes* the mod_dav API, do you
> really think that will be accepted into the httpd 2.0 branch? I've
> been assuming not. So Subversion will need to follow 2.1 for a while,
> I suspect.
>
> Am I wrong about this?
I think you are probably correct, but that would be a real shame. People
are looking for ways to get httpd-2.0 adopted by more people, subversion
is the one killer app that currently exists for 2.0. By moving subversion
to 2.1, you have just removed that killer app. This just proves that
httpd-2.0 wasn't ready for an API-freeze, and that it was imposed too
early instead of allowing the API to settle itself.
Ryan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jan 3 18:31:00 2003