John Peacock wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> What you're forgetting is that while that ensures nobody can build a
>> version with any CURRENTLY known bugs, we'll be locking them in to
>> building code that has ALL of the currently UNKNOWN bugs. The next
>> patch release of Neon is FAR more likely to fix some (of the currently
>> unknown) bugs than to introduce new ones.
>
> I think we have to agree to disagree, since I am clearly a pessimist and
> you
> appear to be an optimist. "Better the devil you know than the devil you
> don't" (ancient Chinese proverb).
By that logic, you would *never* upgrade your version of Subversion until
you were absolutely forced to. I doubt you do that.
> I'd also like to point out [again] that a longstanding Subversion policy
> has
> been to enumerate Neon versions (which Sussman has already gone on record
> with disliking). Change it if you like, but at least have the strength to
> admit that it is a change from a policy which has worked so far pretty
> well.
I don't think it is a policy at all.
I think it is an accidental consequence of writing shell code for 'is in
list' being easier than 'matches numerical criteria'.
Max.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 18 14:42:45 2005