Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> On 8/23/05, Max Bowsher <maxb@ukf.net> wrote:
>> Marcus Rueckert wrote:
>>> On 2005-08-22 15:31:09 -0500, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>>>> This looks correct to me. If you tested that it can build, say, Neon
>>>> 0.25.0 and 0.25.2, then +1 on committing it. And thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Your log message should mention the symbol names for the changes to
>>>> NEON_ALLOWED_LIST and NEON_LATEST_WORKING_VER (minor nit).
>>>>
>>>> -Karl
>>>
>>> 0.25.3 is released already. maybe test this version to and update the
>>> patch accordingly?
>>
>> Is there any reason not to accept 0.25.<anything> ?
>
> Not at this time. We did need that feature at one time in the 0.24
> series when security holes were discovered....
>
> I thought to work on within that framework.
OK, to rephrase - is there ever any reason not to allow *later* versions
neon than were current at the time of release of a subversion package?
I can understand forbidding versions earlier than a certain number, but I
think having configure refuse to use later versions is not so good.
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 23 21:30:07 2005