--On Saturday, February 21, 2004 12:06 AM -0600 kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> The important factor, IMHO, is that the bindings developers are, by
> and large, different from the C code developers. *Most* discussions
> the C developers have are not relevant for the bindings developers,
> and *most* discussions the bindings developers have are not even read
> by many C developers. (Sure, there's some crossover, I'm just talking
> about the broad view here.)
I think this is at the heart of your concern: are the bindings developers
(*not* users *of* the bindings) a truly separate community, or are they part
of the 'core' Subversion development community? If they are separate, then,
yes, they should be removed from Subversion. If not and are a part of the
larger community, what benefit is gained by making that subset leave?
For some bindings (such as Python), I think that the integration is much more
thorough than for others (such as JavaHL). But, again, I'd ask to look at the
length that the JavaHL and Perl bindings have been in our tree relative to the
Python bindings. I think over time, they'd be as 'fully' integrated from the
community perspective. For example, I've only just checked in code within the
last month that allows developers to build JavaHL as part of the standard
build process. I think that's the first of many steps towards 'full'
integration of JavaHL into the 'core' community. There's more work to be
done, for sure; but, it's a slow process.
I really wish I could suggest that we delay this discussion until 2.0. As-is,
we're going to be shipping bindings in 1.0 next week. This just seems an
awkward time to have this discussion. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Feb 21 10:08:03 2004