incubator-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "C. Michael Pilato" <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL][VOTE] Subversion
Date Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:59:31 GMT
Igor Burilo wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>> Our goal is to bring our Serf integration up to the quality (in terms of
>>> both user experience and proper API adherence) of our Neon one so that
> Serf
>>> can safely become the new default DAV RA implementation, yes.  It's mostly
>>> there, but still contains a few gotchas.  We've switched our trunk
>>> (1.7-aimed) code to use Serf as the default if both it and Neon are found,
>>> but that change could be reverted (restoring the use of Neon as the
> default)
>>> if we aren't able to iron out the Serf integration shortcomings in a
> timely
>>> fashion. 
> Michael, this is a very good news and it's good that you work on it now,
> because licensing issues (Neon license incompatibility) are very important
> for us. Hope that you will manage to do it if for SVN 1.7.
> Thanks, Igor

I certainly understand why license issues would be a concern.  But I could
use an education about why this particular case matters.  We currently ship
Neon in a separate tarball from Subversion's core code for the convenience
of our users, but if that's a problem, we can stop doing so.  Subversion
doesn't require Neon.  Or Serf.  You can have a perfectly valid, working,
Subversion client and server that doesn't use a DAV layer at all.  The
Subversion community has never released binaries -- ever -- not do we plan
to.  So users and package maintainers are free to assemble Subversion with
the optional bits they care to provide for their consumers.

Igor, is there a particular concern that you can elaborate on here if only
for my education?

C. Michael Pilato <>
CollabNet   <>   <>   Distributed Development On Demand

View raw message