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

RE: svn commit: r1495419 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf: options.c ra_serf.h serf.c util.c

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2013 11:25:27 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ben Reser [mailto:ben_at_reser.org]
> Sent: dinsdag 9 juli 2013 09:46
> To: Greg Stein
> Cc: kmradke; Subversion Development
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1495419 - in
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf: options.c ra_serf.h serf.c
util.c
>
> On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 8:53 PM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > For *this* project, that is absolutely the case. We have never said
"let's
> > work against any server anybody decides to implement." We write to our
> > client, and our server, and third parties adapt to our changes.
>
> But we have said that a newer Subversion client will continue to work
> against an older server. The net effect of this issue is hardly
> different for users trapped behind these proxies from us requiring
> some new feature only provided in a 1.8 server to use a 1.8 client. I
> realize that's not entirely true since our server has always supported
> chunked requests, but I don't think users see this distinction. I
> think we owe our users to go the extra mile here.

Note that we haven't got a single report from a user with a proxy that
behaves like this.

All user reports on our lists (and to the AnkhSVN lists) are against servers
that are setup with a front-end-proxy to the internet.

Normal users wouldn't even see this as a proxy setup. I wouldn't be
surprised if most of these are already upgraded, as that is the most likely
reason why we don't get additional user reports on our lists.

        Bert
Received on 2013-07-09 11:26:31 CEST

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