On 10/13/05, David Anderson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > * The Ruby bindings seg fault in their test suite if you build with
> > "--enable-pool-debug=yes". John Szakmeister, in this message
> > http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=106738
> > starts it off, then David James asks Kouhei to take a look here:
> > http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=106779
> > [Meta comment: Should it worry us that there's basically only person
> > who knows how to keep the SWIG-Ruby bindings in shape? We have a
> > minimum two-person-per-language policy when it comes to translations;
> > shouldn't we at least have the same for the bindings? Kouhei, this
> > is not a complaint about you, of course; you're doing great stuff,
> > it's just a question of what would happen if you took a vacation. :-)
> > ]
> It would be nice, to ensure the long-term stability of the Ruby
> bindings. FWIW, I'm +1 on stating that a minimum two-devs-per-language
> in bindings is very strongly desired, if not mandatory.
Are there any budding Ruby or Python developers here?
It would definitely be great to have more bindings developers. If
anyone is interested in learning more about Subversion, the bindings
are a great place to start. Feel free to email me and the list if you
have any questions, and we'll do our best to help.
Still, I don't think we need to worry about the Ruby bindings. The
Ruby bindings are in excellent shape: they provide extensive coverage
of the Subversion APIs through an intuitive Ruby interface. They also
have an extensive test suite, which will forever ensure their
correctness as we continue to improve Subversion in the future.
I don't think the Ruby issues with the "enable-pool-debug" option are
a blocker for 1.3.0. If Kouhei and I don't finish the fix on time for
this release, we can release the fix with 1.3.1.
> > * According to David James in this message:
> > http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=106757
> > "John Peacock pointed out some build issues with the Perl bindings,
> > where installed libraries link to build-dir libraries. Max, will
> > reverting r16486 fix the problem? If so, perhaps we should revert
> > r16486 and propose the revert for backport to the 1.3.x branch. See:
> > http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2005-10/0556.shtml"
> > I don't think there's been any answer to David's question yet.
> > * r16693, a simple crash fix in libsvn_ra_dav. It's already got two
> > votes in 1.3.x/STATUS, just needs one more person to review and vote.
> An update on the these two. Max approved and merged r16693, and has
> nominated r16704, which reverts r16486. The merge needs one more
> approval to go through, if someone fluent in the bindings build system
> could do that the list of problems would already be halved.
Thanks for the update! I've approved r16693.
> > Anyway, I wish I could see this through to the RC tarball, but it
> > looks like there won't be time. Someone please be shepherd...
> If everyone's okay with it, my lack of in-depth knowledge of the
> problematic areas means I can hold Karl's cattle prod while he's away
> and act like everything's under control in his stead and save someone
> else the bother.
Thanks for your excellent work, David!
David James -- http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~james
Received on Fri Oct 14 04:45:38 2005