2008-09-22 23:56:35 Greg Stein napisał(a):
> Lose all mention of 0.29, and I'm +1 with that.
When I tested Subversion 1.5.2, all tests passed with Neon 0.29.0-dev.
> 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
Received on 2008-09-23 00:10:02 CEST