Thom May <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > As for timing, I would suggest making APR 1.0 official first, then > > switching over to Subversion shortly after. But, let's please get APR 1.0 > > out the door first. It's overdue enough. =) -- justin
+1 on moving to Subversion given a consensus among the APR developers. If people feel that switching will cause a temporary hiccup in development, and this will delay APR 1.0, then waiting till after 1.0 seems like a good idea. But the "raises the bar for contributions in general" objection is decreasingly valid, I think. A Subversion client is not that hard to get these days; and installing one is not something that an APR contributor would find difficult in any case. (Remember, contributors don't need to set up a Subversion *server*, just a client. That means no potential Apache HTTPD dependency, no Berkeley DB dependency.) IMHO, given that Spamassassin was fine with Subversion, APR has nothing to be afraid of as far as raising the bar for unsolicited contributions. Let's make this decision on the basis of what current committers will be comfortable with. If people there have strong objections *on their own behalf*, rather than on behalf of unknown future contributors, then we shouldn't do it until those objections are assuaged. Right now, the primary objection seems to be "Let's not interfere with getting APR 1.0 done." That seems very wise. But once 1.0 is out, does anyone object to switching then? Aaron Bannert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (Note the circular dependency in asking APR to adopt SVN before APR > 1.0 is released, since SVN depends on APR. :) :-) But seriously, there is no circular dependency here. SVN 1.0 depends on APR 0.9.5, not APR 1.0. All Subversion releases will always depend on a particular release or release range of APR, never on APR head. -Karl
