[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Merge policies regarding bindings

From: Justin Erenkrantz <justin_at_erenkrantz.com>
Date: 2003-12-19 10:46:45 CET

--On Friday, December 19, 2003 12:53 AM -0800 Ben Reser <ben@reser.org> wrote:

> So in summary. I'm fine with 3 +1s for binding updates. I do think we
> should be a little more flexible on what we merge in for the ones that
> are incomplete. But by more flexible I don't think automatic approval
> is the answer either. I just think they shouldn't necessarily be held
> to the standards that we would hold the C API too regarding not making
> major changes. I don't see any way to get them up to snuff without
> making some major changes.

Depending upon how frequently we go through the 1.0->1.1->1.2 cycle, how about
for the perl (or any other 'unstable' binding) saying that it'll be compatible
for that minor series alone? The python bindings, on the other hand, would be
expected to work in any 1.x series (like the C bindings).

Perhaps that's a compromise that could work? So, you'd only be stuck with the
bindings until we hit 1.2 (assuming odd/even dev cycles which isn't even
agreed to yet).

What do ya'll think? -- justin

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Dec 19 10:47:24 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.