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

Re: Mac OS X "packages" Best Practices?

From: Jeremy Pereira <jeremyp_at_jeremyp.net>
Date: 2006-03-06 08:17:41 CET

On Mar 6, 2006, at 06:17, Geoffrey Alan Washburn wrote:

> 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.

Define "plenty".

> > 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
> > broken).
> 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.

I said the implementation is fundamentally flawed, not the concept.
Execute bits might be a flawed concept but the implementation is not

> >> 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.

You need to tell the developers that you are prepared to put the
money up, not the users. I suggest you post your offer on the dev
list. I expect you'll find this one comes out quite expensive since
it is not a trivial change and requires a good deal of thought to
implement it properly (that's probably the real reason it hasn't been
done yet).

I'd be happy to have a go for you at a price, but it'd be a risk for
you because I am not a subversion developer and I can't guarantee
that I could get the developers to accept my patch. Of course, in
that situation you could pay me even more money and I'd keep the
patch in line with whatever release of Subversion you are using.

You also don't know how good my coding skills are.

> > 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.

The subject has come up on this list before. If you do a search in
the archives, you'll probably find it.

> --
> [Geoff Washburn|geoffw_at_cis.upenn.edu|http://www.cis.upenn.edu/
> ~geoffw/]
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 6 08:19:46 2006

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.