Re: place of svnrdump (was: Re: svnmucc multiline property issue)

Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote on Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 19:15:16 +0530:
> I have no interest in politics, and I don't want to speculate why
> svnmucc isn't built by `make` by default.

Because it lives in tools/.

> I would like to keep this
> discussion focused purely on the benefits and trade-offs of including
> svnrdump in subversion/svnrdump. If the discussion deviates from this,
> I would NOT like to be included in it-

I mentioned svnmucc as a relevant example. Nobody will force you to
participate in discussions you aren't interested in.

> I'm a just a new partial
> committer and I don't know how your organization works.

"Your" organization? I hope that you consider yourself a part of this
community. You ARE a committer.

> The major downside of including svnrdump now is that users might
> complain that it doesn't work and will file some bugs. However, being
> a simple client-side utility, I doubt it'll cause any major
> catastrophies, even if it's used in production.

Indeed. But it WILL get included either way --- the question is how we
package it.

> Ofcourse I understand that having authored svnrdump, it's possible
> that my personal interests have clouded my judgement. I've kept this
> in mind, and tried to be as unbiased as possible. I'll appeal to
> everyone else to do the same- do what you think is in the best
> interest of the greater good.
>

+1, let's keep this discussion professional. I'm trying to do that too
(but your tone makes me feel you might have taken offence at some of my
remarks...?)

> -- Ram
Received on 2010-09-25 16:44:27 CEST