Jeremy Pereira wrote:
> No I am saying they have priorities that are not necessarily
> determined by what a small section of the community wants.
Define small? I seem to recall people mentioning that this
affected plenty of people besides just Mac users.
> I happen to think that the feature request in question is one that
> would be nice to have, being a Mac OS X developer myself (I also think
> that the implementation of bundles by Mac OS X is fundamentally
Bundles, originating in NeXTStep, have been implemented the way
they have been for far longer than Subversion has been in existence.
One could argue "executable" bits are fundamentally broken, and that
extended attributes should be used, but Subversion support the former,
but not the latter. Perhaps some people can wait for the perfect
file-system and data storage paradigm to be invented, but some people
need to work with what exists.
>> Yawn. When are people going to learn that saying that makes you
>> look silly. I'd, and probably a number of more serious users, would
>> gladly pay someone to improve a number of problems in Subversion that
>> the developers "don't seem to find interesting", but I don't see any
>> developers lining up.
> Well the fact is, nobody has put any money up to fix this problem.
What part about "I would pay to have have someone resolve this
problem along with several other critical flaws" did you misinterpret?
I'm sure that between all the interested parties enough money could be
raised. But as I said, no one seems to be interested in stepping
forward to do said work. I guess capitalism just isn't what it used to be.
> I disagree with your assertion that the document is vague about the
> process for submitting patches. It seems perfectly explicit to me.
It explains how to submit a patch, but not the criterion for one
accepted into main source tree.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Mon Mar 6 01:05:24 2006