"Justin Erenkrantz" <justin_at_erenkrantz.com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Lieven Govaerts <svnlgo_at_mobsol.be> wrote:
>> There's always a customer somewhere that wants a certain feature earlier,
>> that's ok. We even have some committers now that want to support that, even
>> better. Give them a branch!
>
> My concern is that CollabNet folks have said that they are
> contemplating switching their official 1.5 binaries to include these
> features and make them available to the world. (Regardless of
> whatever we do, CollabNet *will* make these binaries available to
> their paying customers in some fashion.)
Ah, I understand. But if that's what the problem is, let's just ask
them to not do that.
This issue is totally independent of the branch-in-the-repos question.
Some developers could use SVK or git-svn today and create a local
branch, then start rolling binaries from it, then start releasing those
binaries publicly. We would object to that on the same grounds, and ask
them to please not do that...
> So, instead of creating confusion by having feature disparity between
> in-the-wild 1.5.x releases, I'd prefer that we just issue a 1.6
> release that has those same features to minimize confusion. I dislike
> folks using our name and adding features that we don't have in the
> same release and still calling it "Subversion". -- justin
...so, a solution is to not call it "Subversion" (at least, not *just*
"Subversion").
I certainly agree that there are objectionable things that could
possibly happen here, and we should make sure they don't happen. But
none of them are caused by, nor dependent on, a branch in the repos.
Totally separate questions.
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-08-07 20:52:11 CEST