Re: Delivering the Subversion OSX Universal binary as a Framework

> I am not saying that a framework would be bad, although the Apple docs
> imply there is some marginal cost to using them. I am saying the
> improvements by doing this are likely to be small and it probably
> involves a lot of work to get our build system modified to do this. I
> do not see the value. Jeremy works on SVN on his own time and has two
> young kids. I'd rather see him use his talents on areas that bring
> more value. If this is something he is motivated to do, as he is with
> the new Python bindings, then great he should go for it. If he is
> asking for opinions, I am saying I do not see the value of this
> justifying the effort. If he wants to make SVN a great OSX app, there
> are certainly much bigger problems than this, such as the Unicode
> encoding problems and the WC redesign you are working on.

I appreciate the feedback. That was the purpose of this. While I do
plan to continue to contribute to other, more valuable parts of
Subversion, I still think there are two major benefits to at least
having the option of a framework:

* Multiple installed, isolated versions of Subversion at the same time
 (Right now, we backup and then install over the previous version.)
* The ability to build against Subversion easier

I don't mind either way. I just thought this was worth mentioning
since it had been brought up a few times, even from a Subversion
developer asking why I didn't deliver it as a framework. I really
think this is productive even if we decide not to do this.

-- 
Take care,
Jeremy Whitlock
http://www.thoughtspark.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org