On Nov 14, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
>
>> If the answer is *no*, then who/what entity is going
>> to take up the slack and maintain these builds?
>>
>
> I thought the prior system was working just fine. For linux distros,
> there were volunteer maintainers who always made sure the latest .rpm
> or .deb got into the proper distribution systems. For Mac, we've
> always had one or two volunteers who make nice .dmg binaries available
> on their personal website. For Windows, we've always had brane (or
> djh) make a private build and upload a package or two.
>
Understood, and agreed, as far as it goes. But I do think the
subversion team needs to maintain a up-to-date list of "quasi-
official" (? "blessed" ?) builds. Posit: I want to use Subversion but
cannot/will not/should not do my own build. Where do I go for
binaries? Google can lead me to any number of sites. I choose one:
but it's an out-of-date build, or has private "features" that the
person doing the build wanted to hack in (and never got around to
testing...). How do I determine this "bad" build from a "good" one?
I agree that the svn team cannot afford the time to setup a formal
build/test lab, but I do think that they should be a bit more pro-
active in pointing people to the semi-blessed binaries. Care in
point: the Mac builds referenced on the downloads page are now way
out of date (2-3 back-revved). I was able to locate a Mac build at
another site (Martin Ott's), and after careful checking it turns out
Martin does a great job ... but I had to tread carefully before I was
comfortable (can you spell "virus"?).
--Tim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 14 21:35:51 2006