e at ik.nu
Tue Nov 8 08:23:24 PST 2005
Lev Serebryakov wrote:
>Tuesday, November 8, 2005, 7:13:52 PM, you wrote:
>EM> Why did you update subversion to a pre-release (that is: unstable)
>EM> version of 1.3.0, while 1.2.3 is the current recommended version by the
>EM> subversion team? People (like me) are counting on a stable subversion
>EM> client/server in the ports tree... Perhaps the 1.3.0rc? can move to a
>EM> seperate port, for instance devel/subversion-devel... I'd really like
>EM> to see a stable, released version in the main port...
> (a) This RC is fixed many bugs, which was reported to me as port's maintainer. Backport patches when release will be in month or less is not what I want to do.
> (b) Some gcc maintainers need this version, because gcc project uses subversion now and REQUIRES 1.3.0-rc1 or later.
> (c) We need to test this version on FreeBSD BEFORE release, because sibversion's developers never does tests on FreeBSD themselfs.
> And, last, but not least:
> (d) You is not enforced to update. 1.2.3_3 is Ok for you? Don't updgrade port -- it is simple!
How about machines that need to reinstall/have a new install of
subversion? Simply assuming everybody either 1) already has subversion
1.2.3 on their machines or 2) wants to run the bleeding edge version
instead of the latest stable release is a bit blunt... Could you
perhaps create a subversion12 port instead?
> And about `subversion-devel': 95% of time there is not any alpha, beata or rc versions of subversion project. RC presents for less than a month and even nto for every release, so 95% of time `devel' port will be equal to `simple' one.
More information about the freebsd-ports