Re: DeltaV conformance vs backward compatibility in fixing the issue 2151

> I didn't propose not to do other changes. I merely was saying that if
> making the server fully RFC3253 compliant (on this matter) means that
> all relevant clients need to be upgraded first, then this should be done
> ASAP

But making the server fully compliant can not be done before release
of the Subversion 2.0 according to www/hacking.html#release-numbering.
So there is enough time to fix the wrong clients later.

>> not a regression. Does my proposal prevent the compliance issue?
>
> Not really. But it seems to be a workaround for a problem caused by
> non-compliance, thus the *long-term* fix should be to get rid of the
> compliance issue, instead of wiring-in a workaround forever, right?

Yes. I will mark the incompliant codes in my change with comments so
that future work for the compliance issue will be done easily. I think
it is enough now.

I think it is my mistake that I did not send a patch first. I would
like to start another new thread with a drafting patch after some more
work. I hope it will be clear that my patch does not prevent the
compliance issue. Sorry for a bit confusing.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Feb 21 18:47:13 2006