On 3/8/07, Ben Collins-Sussman <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 3/8/07, Malcolm Rowe <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 11:36:08AM -0600, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > > http://subversion.tigris.org/project_tasks.html
> > >
> > Thoughts:
> > - Issue #2409: Operation and error logging for svnserve
> > I don't like this as a SoC task, for the simple reason that every time
> > someone turns up who's interested in working on it we say "uh, yeah,
> > actually, we need work doing in APR first". Could we suggest that APR
> > add something to _their_ tasks list instead, rather than pull a
> > bait-and-switch on potential contributors?
> I'm torn on this. It's a new Subversion feature that depends on a new
> APR feature. I have no idea whether APR participates in Summer of
> Code, but even if they are, it sounds like a ridiculous task to have
> one student working for both projects, or to have one student's task
> depend on another.
> However, since since a large percentage of svn committers are also APR
> committers, I don't see a real barrier here. The student submits
> patches, and then we commit those patches either to APR or Subversion
> as needed. At most, it means having to negotiate feature-design with
> two communities rather than one, but we can certainly help with that.
> Doesn't seem like a showstopper to me.
Why don't we just let someone write this as a Subversion feature and let the
committers decide later if they want to push parts of the framework upstream
to APR. It would be disappointing if the only way someone could use this
feature was if they build Subversion with APR 1.3 or later.
Received on Thu Mar 8 20:15:59 2007