Hi Mike,
C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>Garrett Rooney <rooneg@electricjellyfish.net> writes:
>
>
>
>>Chia-Liang Kao wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I was thinking about proposing that bindings changes are allowed
>>>to be merged for 1.0. Since that all the bindings are not as
>>>complete as it should be under the '1.0' brand, nor does the
>>>stablization issues that people concern most seem to cover the
>>>bindings. In the case i think we should probably let the
>>>maintainer of the bindings to decide what is to be merged since
>>>they carry the responsiblity to support them after the release.
>>>
>>>
>>That makes perfect sense to me.
>>
>>
>
>And to me.
>
I would love that.
>
>
>
>>We should probably also document somewhere that the language bindings
>>are not holding themselves to the same backwards compatability
>>constraints that the core Subversion libraries are, just so nobody gets
>>the wrong idea about how stable they are.
>>
That depends on the bindings. I try to keep the javahl binding backward
compatable if possible.
>>
>>
>
>+1.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
Patrick
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 17 16:57:28 2003