Re: Why svn 2.0 may come sooner than we expected

--On Thursday, July 1, 2004 4:09 PM -0700 Ben Reser <ben@reser.org> wrote:

> This is really no different than bdb 4.1 vs bdb 4.2. They are not
> binary compatible. You have to be linked against the right one.
> However, we don't demand bdb 4.2, we work just fine with 4.1 (though
> there may be some bugs that result from using 4.1, but we leave it up to
> people to decide if that's a problem for them or not).

+1 to everything Ben said that I snipped and importantly the above.

Subversion's versioning guarantees should only apply to itself, not it's
dependencies. Subversion isn't a platform - just one cog in the puzzle.
We can't freeze our dependencies and enforce our compatibility rules on
them. We can do our best to mitigate the effects, but a SVN major version
bump because a dependency had one? Eek.

> But whatever we do, making arbitrary restrictions on the versions that
> we'll work against, even though we are source compatible is just wrong.
> Ultimately, people will just patch around these restrictions anyway.

FWIW, we're using httpd-2.1 HEAD with the SVN 1.0.x branch on
svn.apache.org without any problems. So, saying that SVN works only with
httpd-2.0.x and APR 0.9 isn't going to fly there. ;-) -- justin

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jul 2 02:57:33 2004