RE: 1.8 Progress

[...]
> > 3) libsvn_ra_serf stabilization. I know there have been a couple
> > concerns that Philip has raised (EAGAIN and the random failures).
>
> Philip and Ivan both seem keen on reinstating ra_neon.

[GB: ] Hi Everyone,
I realise I am non-committer to SVN - but am a Software Developer none the less;
I think it is important - regardless of the route chosen to make a firm decision and stick to it.
The do we / don't we get rid of ra_neon has been a talking point on here for a really long time now and seemingly still has no "final" status.

I'd also like to add, that if the end-game is; we are going to "just" support serf, then surely the answer is to spend time correcting the issues in serf that people have noted, as opposed to spending time re-inserting neon?
Of course that assumes that we can get serf to where it needs to be - in time for a 1.8 release.

It might just be stating the obvious - but if we can’t get serf to where it needs to be for a 1.8 release of SVN - then surely it is prudent to re-insert ra_neon back into SVN and make 1.9 the goal for being serf-only?

Gavin.
Received on 2012-11-30 02:16:40 CET