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

Max Bowsher wrote:
> By that logic, you would *never* upgrade your version of Subversion
> until you were absolutely forced to. I doubt you do that.

No, but I'm a developer by nature (and avocation), so I am interested in
both feature upgrades and bug fixes. I am not a "typical" user of
Subversion; I suspect that more than 50% of the _users_ of Subversion
rely on their distro to provide them with a precompiled version. And at
least for RedHat, SuSE, and Mandrake (the ones I am most familiar with),
they do not always update packages except for bugfixes and only go to a
more current release when updating the entire distro to the next
release. This is not only perfectly acceptable, it is guaranteed by
Subversion's own compatibility policy.

> I think it is an accidental consequence of writing shell code for 'is in
> list' being easier than 'matches numerical criteria'.

It is what it is. Unless someone writes shell code to split the
major/minor/subrelease and compare all terms (which is the most accurate
method), the Subversion project has two choice:

1) enumerate allowed versions;
2) enumerate disallowed versions.

#1 has [mostly] worked so far and #2 would be more trouble than it is
probably worth. I'd suggest applying a patch for 1.3.0 to strip out
Neon 0.25.0 from the allowed list, add some explanation in the INSTALL
as to why 0.25.0 may have a problem on certain machines and how to
either install using it anyways or how to adjust .subversion/servers to
disable HTTP compression. I'm not interested in debating this any further.

John

-- 
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard
Suite H
Lanham, MD  20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5748
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org