"C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato@collab.net> writes:
> The only way I can advocate keeping the bindings joined with the main
> Subversion product is if the community can agree that the bindings are
> first-class citizens -- that we spend time catching the bindings up to
> the completeness level of their C counterparts, create a regression
> test framework, and thereafter treat bindings bugs just as seriously
> as core library bugs.
>
> [...]
>
> But for me the line you're looking for involves essential-ness. If we
> as a community say that the bindings are an essential piece of
> Subversion, then we must start treating them as such (and can keep
> them in this project). Otherwise, get 'em out.
Absolutely agree with Mike's analysis.
I'm one developer who is not willing to make that kind of commitment
to the bindings (& suspect I'm not alone). It just doesn't make sense
to treat them as "essential". You can use Subversion without the
bindings, and many people do. You can't use Subversion without
Subversion, however.
To state the obvious: This project would grind to halt if bindings
failures had to be treated as seriously as core code failures. We
simply cannot afford to commit to that level of maintenance. It's
hard enough to keep up with the core code bugs as it is!
If bindings developers do want to commit to it, then great. But that
decision is independent of where the bindings live.
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Feb 21 08:42:28 2004