Re: More on possible problem with Neon 0.25.0 [was Re: 1.3.0 RC1 ready to be rolled]
On 10/14/05, David Anderson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> John Peacock wrote:
> > I'd rather have a "--no-neon-version-check" so that someone has to do
> > something proactive, rather than just relying on warnings. Unless you
> > make the configure script interactive (not going to be met with a lot
> > of support), it would best to error out if 0.25.0 was found, but give
> > people a way around it should they so choose.
> Sounds good to me, failures are large enough warnings :-). It is indeed
> better to force proactiveness in the case of possible breakage.
> If there are no objections to this, can someone who knows the build
> scripts integrate that behaviour and nominate the change for 1.3.x ?
As far as this relates to RC1, I'm very much in favor of just
rejecting, in order to help speed up the release process. Anything
else would require much more autoconf magic, which IMO gains us
little: Neon 0.25.3 is the latest anyway and API+ABI compatible with
Received on Fri Oct 14 15:41:07 2005
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev