[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: current plan for WC

From: <kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 15:10:57 -0500

"Mark Phippard" <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote on 10/01/2008 02:00:35 PM:
> On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 2:46 PM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > This gets the process started in 1.6. If we do *everything* in 1.7,
> > then we'll compound the development and rollout costs of that version.
> > This will give us a baseline moving into the 1.7 development line.
> >
> > And let me throw a question back at you: why do *you* say any change
> > to Subversion need to add benefit without development/release risk? If
> > the change to internals get us on a path for long-term benefit, then
> > that seems more than appropriate.
>
> Not to sound like a douche, but I think Subversion releases are for
> our users not for us. I think it is OK to add changes that do not
> bring benefits, I am more concerned about causing new problems. My
> specific concerns here are:
>
> 1) The SQLite dependency may lead to unexpected packaging and
> deployment problems. Your point is "great, let's get those worked
> out." Mine is "this would be easier if we had some great benefits to
> go with it and make people think it is worth the pain."

I'm not for (or against) it, but sqlite could be included and
statically built with svn as a single source file:

 http://www.sqlite.org/amalgamation.html

Kevin R.
Received on 2008-10-01 22:55:51 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.