[...] > > 3) libsvn_ra_serf stabilization. I know there have been a couple > > concerns that Philip has raised (EAGAIN and the random failures). > > Philip and Ivan both seem keen on reinstating ra_neon.
[GB: ] Hi Everyone, I realise I am non-committer to SVN - but am a Software Developer none the less; I think it is important - regardless of the route chosen to make a firm decision and stick to it. The do we / don't we get rid of ra_neon has been a talking point on here for a really long time now and seemingly still has no "final" status. I'd also like to add, that if the end-game is; we are going to "just" support serf, then surely the answer is to spend time correcting the issues in serf that people have noted, as opposed to spending time re-inserting neon? Of course that assumes that we can get serf to where it needs to be - in time for a 1.8 release. It might just be stating the obvious - but if we can’t get serf to where it needs to be for a 1.8 release of SVN - then surely it is prudent to re-insert ra_neon back into SVN and make 1.9 the goal for being serf-only? Gavin.
