On Thu, Sep 02, 2010 at 09:27:57PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > On 09/02/2010 01:38 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
> > > dmitry boyarintsev <skalogryz.lists_at_gmail.com> writes:
> > >
> > >> Hello Subversion-dev,
> > >>
> > >> I can see, that there's no much of interest in Pascal bindings.
> > >> Well, that's quite understandable because of Pascal language not
> > >> being popular.
> > >>
> > >> Anyway, I'll publish the headers on my site.
> > >>
> > >> Thank you for your great product!
> > >
> > > You are more likely to get some response if you send a patch against
> > > trunk with a log message, see
> > >
> > > http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/general.html#patches
> > >
> > > Even if you do that I don't know that there is any great demand for
> > > Pascal bindings. Are they generated or written by hand? Do they have
> > > regression tests? Are they tied to any particular environment?
> > All great questions, Philip. Another one that's on my mind is, "Is Dmitry
> > volunteering to stick around and maintain these bindings?" We really try to
> > avoid drop-and-ignore contributions of this sort, where none of the active
> > committership appears to be interested (or perhaps even qualified) to
> > maintain the new code.
> Mike, Dmitry said in his original mail that he would support them.
> Quoting it in full:
> > Hello SVN people.
> > As suggested by Hyrum K. Wright I'm forwarding the mail here.
> > I'm wandering if there's an official Pascal (FreePascal or Delphi)
> > bindings for the Subversion. I've converted C-headers (1.5.6 tag) for
> > my own needs, and I guess it would be easy for me to catch up with the
> > trunk as well.
> > If they're acceptable, I would like to contribute them for the
> > project, as well as support and update the bindings with the new
> > product releases.
> > Any suggestions? Do you need to have Pascal bindings?
> > thanks,
> > Dmitry
> - Julian
I'd say send a patch and we'll see about including them.
It cannot hurt to have them around.
Though I'm afraid that not many people here will be able to digest
the patches. But should we reject new bindings just because of that?
The other bindings we have historically hardly been maintained,
but they survive. Just recently we've been getting nice contributions
in the python bindings area.
Dmitry, one thing you might not have taken into account is that we try
to run the binding tests continuously as part of our buildbot regression
test runs. Sometimes, the bindings linger in a state where the tests
on the buildbots keep failing for ages. Ideally, you should be prepared
to fix the bindings when tests fail, instead of just when we release.
We update and tweak the APIs continuously during development, and it's
nice when the bindings hop along.
But in any case, I see no reason why you shouldn't send a patch.
Received on 2010-09-02 22:57:10 CEST