subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Problems accessing GitHub's SVN-bridge with SVN 1.11
Date Mon, 10 Dec 2018 12:11:46 GMT
On 10.12.2018 10:08, Thorsten Schöning wrote:
> Guten Tag Branko Čibej,
> am Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2018 um 19:27 schrieben Sie:
>
>> My current thinking is that if GitHub can't fix their protocol emulation
>> by the time of the planned Subversion 1.12 release, we'll have to
>> seriously consider including this patch.
> If they really didn't fix it until 1.12, they surely won't ever
> anymore. Maybe this gives you enough time to discuss this
> fundamentally and tell people what they can expect for issues like
> this one in future from the SVN-team?
>
> It seems clear to me that the issue would need to be fixed by GH, but
> your are able to workaround it somewhat easily. But this is only one
> issue, what in case of another one easy like this or more difficult?

Exactly, this is why I'd prefer not to implement a specific hack for
GitHub in our code. If we made it a policy to support one broken server,
everyone would expect us to do so for the N+1st broken server, too ...
it's simply unmanageable in the long run.


> In theory 1.12 could break something different for some reason and
> people would need to stick with 1.10 for at least a year then.

Ah, but we have a test in our test suite now (for this particular case). :)


> If you come to the conclusion that you don't do this kind of hacking
> anymore

Just to point out: it' snot "any more"; we've never had any
vendor-specific hacks in our code.

Well actually that's not quite true, we still have a (build-time) hack
for Microsoft's ASP.Net, which could not abide having the '.svn'
directory in its project tree; but that was a client-side, compile-time
hack for a misfeature that had no workaround.

>  or even at all including this issue, users of the SVN-bridge
> would simply need to change their workflow to something else. I'm
> only using the bridge because it was the easiest way to stay with my
> former workflow and how I manage some versioned libs.
>
> Or do you think it's not worth discussing that fundamentally (yet)?

It is surely worth discussing, but please, such discussions really
should happen on our dev@ list, not the users@ list. Feel free to start
a thread there.


-- Brane

Mime
View raw message