Daniel Rall wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Malcolm Rowe wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 28, 2006 at 01:04:55PM +0100, Max Bowsher wrote:
>>> Speaking of which, isn't a list rather the wrong approach to take here?
>>>
>>> Shouldn't we accept:
>>> * any 0.24.x where x >= 7
>>> * any 0.25.x
>>> * any 0.26.x
>>> ?
>>>
>> Yes, in theory. I think that, historically, Neon hasn't been exactly
>> stable over the sub-minor versions, and so the current 'approve known-good
>> versions' approach evolved from that. I don't know whether that approach
>> is still necessary.
>
> That's why we have the explicit "allow list" in the first place.
> Given the number of problems seen with Neon Windows auth, I tend to
> think we should stick with this approach.
I'm mainly looking to avoid a situation where neon 0.26.2 gets released,
and people have to use --disable-neon-version-check until we get a patch
release of Subversion out that validates it.
That just seems overly messy. It would be bad for people to habituate to
using --disable-neon-version-check as a matter of course.
Max.
Received on Wed Sep 6 21:39:11 2006