Lose all mention of 0.29, and I'm +1 with that.
On Sep 22, 2008, at 15:59, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <arfrever.fta_at_gmail.com
> wrote:
> 2008-09-22 05:33:18 Peter Samuelson napisał(a):
>> [Greg Stein]
>>> In the past, we have had issues with Neon (with all dependent
>>> libraries, actually). I prefer that we only allow known-good
>>> libraries, rather than open it to "anything on this branch".
>>
>> We don't do that for other software we use, such as Berkeley DB.
>> And I
>> don't think we should. All software has bugs, and I don't think it's
>> our responsibility to detect buggy versions of unrelated software.
>>
>> I guess the reason we do it for neon is a historical tendency to find
>> serious bugs and incompatibilities between neon and libsvn_ra_dav.
>> But
>> neon has matured a great deal in the past 5+ years. The reason to
>> whitelist neon versions but not, say, libxml versions is, in my view,
>> obsolete.
>>
>> That said, Arfrever, I don't agree with adding 0.29 to the list of
>> supported major versions. If it has been tested, I would add it in a
>> separate commit. 0.29.0-dev is not the same thing, IMO.
>
> What do you think about NEON_ALLOWED_LIST="0\.25 0\.26 0\.27\.2 0\.
> 28 0\.29\.0-dev" ?
>
> --
> Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-09-22 23:56:38 CEST