Re: More on possible problem with Neon 0.25.0 [was Re: 1.3.0 RC1 ready to be rolled]

On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 13:46 -0400, John Peacock wrote:
> If I'm not way off base, libsvn_ra_dav is _highly_ dependent on the
> operation of the Neon library, just as the whole project is with APR.
> Having specific, tested versions is the more conservative policy and
> probably is a wise one as well. Users have a way to ignore the
> limitations if they so choose.
>
> That said, I'm +0 on changing the regex to something more relaxed.

I'm not sure you can be +0 on something if you think it's a "wise
policy" not to do it. :)

Anyway, your attitude is decidedly unfriendly to upstream maintainers.
How would we feel if we found out that people weren't upgrading from svn
1.3.0 to svn 1.3.1 because Eclipse was only working with svn 1.3.0 due
to a similar policy?

(Blocking neon 0.26.x would be fine, though, since AFAIK Neon does not
have a stable API between minor releases at this time.)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 14 20:34:29 2005