Ben Reser wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 21, 2004 at 11:34:21AM +0200, Branko ??ibej wrote:
>
>
>>O.K:, thanks. I think we can require >= 1.3.21 after the 1.0.x branch is
>>dead (which hopefully means soon after 1.1 is out)
>>
>>
>
>I'd rather not. 1.3.19 is fairly common. Will be fairly common for a
>long time to come. As we're actually releasing software rather than
>just developing it, we need to have a darn good reason for increasing
>the requirements. Cleaning out cruft out of the build system that
>supports multiple versions, does not seem to be the right reason to do
>this. We can support 1.3.19 and on with a minor amount of effort. I
>don't see any reason not to continue to do so.
>
That's fine, too. Since we detect the SWIG version, we can keep the old
way of generating the runtime sources for 1.3.19, and let SWIG do it for
us if we find a new enough version. Pity that's not a good candidate for
a 1.0.x backport. :-)
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jun 21 15:22:53 2004