On 15.06.2015 17:36, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 12 June 2015 at 15:11, Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>> To be clear: You are proposing that the code on Windows
>> is fundamentally broken (revision contents not being
>> committed) while I think we "only" have a persistence
>> issue with renames. Since your business depends on
>> you being wrong, it would be in your best self-interest
>> to go and find out ...
>>
>> Of course, I could apply for an MSDN subscription, wait
>> for it be approved etc. but I think it would be fairer if you
>> could check the Windows side of things while I try to get
>> some answers for POSIX.
>>
> Am I understand you properly, that *your business* does not depend on
> Windows and you just do not care about this
Ahem. So ... this has gone somewhat off the straight and narrow. Let's
leave business and self-interest out of this (all parties) and look at
the actual problem instead.
We've always sort of assumed around here that whoever had the working
configuration/platform on hand would be more likely to be able to verify
some platform-dependent edge case or other. Windows is decidedly a bit
of a special case because, traditionally, setting up a build and test
environment for Subversion has been horribly complicated (as I handily
reminded myself just the other day as I was setting up a VM to get a
Windows vote in for 1.9.0-rc2 ... and I'll happily admit part of the blame).
Stefan, for the future, I do think it wouldn't hurt you to get your MSDN
subscription and set up a build environment if you intend to make
platform-dependent changes that can't be verified otherwise. That's just
common sense. As it's also common sense for Ivan to verify such changes
instead of placing all the burden on you.
We're supposed to be trying to work together towards a common goal,
right, not pass the hot potato around? :)
-- Brane
Received on 2015-06-15 18:16:07 CEST