Requiring recent versions of APR etc. [was: Re: Subversion 1.0.0 released.]

Sander Striker wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-02-27 at 01:47, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 18:36, Greg Stein wrote:
>>
>>>As far as I'm concerned, releasing a 1.0.1 in a week or two is *just*
>>>fine. I don't think there is a need to wait "six weeks" or whatever. If we
>>>know about problems, then we'll actually be doing a disservice to make
>>>people wait a while. "But we'll look bad releasing a 1.0.1 so quicly" Oh,
>>>fooey on that. We're grownups and can deal with "looking bad" here and
>>>there.
>>
>>Yah, really, we've got 20+ bugfixes ready to release in 1.0.1. I'd like
>>to do it next week if possible.
>
> If we could get an APR release in the meantime that would be helpful,
> wouldn't it? ;)

We should be conservative about requiring latest versions of external packages. (I assume you meant that we would then require this new version.) Even though Subversion is closely tied to APR, people will want to install Subversion on systems that already have a previous version of APR installed, and it may not be simple (and certainly not _as_ simple) for them to upgrade APR at the same time. The same goes for Neon, Python, etc.

We have to draw the line somewhere - and a package version that is 6 months to a year old is probably fine, but one that has only been released in the last month or so probably has not yet been packaged and distributed in a convenient form for all the operating system platforms that use it.

- Julian

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Feb 27 14:38:56 2004