On 11/14/06, Tim Hill <drtimhill@comcast.net> wrote:
> 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 but it's an out-of-date build, or has private "features" that the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 think we've already been doing this. Our 'downloads' page is about
as much blessing as we give to any particular build. "Here are some
binaries that we think should work for you, but don't ask us for tech
support on them."
>
> 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 out of date (2-3 back-revved).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 think the only sin going on here is that we've stopped being
diligent about updating our downloads page.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 14 22:29:00 2006