John Lenz wrote:
> On 01/11/05 11:48:29, Greg Hudson wrote:
>>
>> (2) Practically speaking, our situation with swig 1.3.24 will be much
>> better than it is with 1.3.21 because there is no runtime library to
>> depend on. Even if swig 1.3.25 changes everything, we won't have to
>> require that people have swig 1.3.24 *installed*, only that they have to
>> drop it into the build tree in order to build. And we can ship it as
>> part of our tarfile, of course.
>>
>
> Exactly. If no one else tries, I will try and figure out and get those
> patches working sometime next week. I am just going to concentrate on the
> 1.x line, because I can't get the latest svn code working (what I assume
> is
> the 2.0 branch).
What you are saying is a but confusing.
The 1.x line *IS* the latest code, i.e. trunk.
If, by 1.x line, you actually mean the 1.1.x branch, then I should point out
that new features *never* go into patch releases, so your patch would be
unusable until it was ported to trunk anyway.
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jan 13 11:54:04 2005