"Justin Erenkrantz" <justin_at_erenkrantz.com> writes:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 8:51 PM, Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>
> True, but in this particular instance, I feel that the larger
> community is better served by having this particular feature available
> from us sooner rather than later - obviating the need for a branch in
> the repos that a vendor will use to produce their own binaries. --
Sounds more like a suggestion for a sooner 1.6, rather than an objection
to the branch (i.e., make the need for the branch go away).
I'm just not sure that "sooner 1.6" has convinced enough people. We had
a six-month plan for such releases, and releasing 1.6 so soon on the
heels of 1.5 could cause some distress among the users. "Do I need to
upgrade?" "What? I thought they just released 1.5?" Etc.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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 21:53:01 CEST