Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2007 9:43 AM, Stefan Sperling <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2007 at 01:21:55AM +0000, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> Sorry, I'm being facetious, but you get the idea: unless I'm
>>> missing something, there ought to be a programmatic WC API for listing the
>> The problem is that CollabNet needs something that is compatible
>> with 1.5, so we cannot extend the API. I know this sounds crazy,
>> and I'd rather be able to design away without having to worry
>> about API changes, but our task at hand is about getting it to
>> work somehow so it can be integrated into 1.5.x.
> Huh? We do not do custom versions of Subversion. Anything you are
> doing should be based on trunk and normal release cycle expectations.
> In this case, that would ideally be for the 1.6 release, but 1.7 if it
> comes to that. You should be able to add any API's that are in
> agreement with the normal Subversion API compatibility promises.
I think what Stefan was trying to express (without trying to sound like a
spokesperson for CollabNet customers) is that tree conflicts is a
significant enough problem that the earlier we can get a workable solution
in place for some of those customers, the better.
Elego, CollabNet, and the Subversion open source community all want the same
thing here -- a good solution to this problem that isn't a one-off but is
instead accepted into Subversion's trunk. Since the situation is arguably a
bug (and therefore a candidate for resolution in a patch release), if a
solution can be provided in a patch release while obeying our API
compatability constraints, then on the assumption that 1.5.x will be
released before 1.6.0, it makes for a good thing to target.
C. Michael Pilato <email@example.com>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Tue Nov 20 19:54:16 2007