From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Nov 28 18:01:07 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF40416A41F for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:01:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from smtp3.server.rpi.edu (smtp3.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C6CD43D60 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:01:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp3.server.rpi.edu (8.13.0/8.13.0) with ESMTP id jASI14OI000504; Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:01:05 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <6364140F-2C30-489B-9B38-BFF503F66499@khera.org> References: <6364140F-2C30-489B-9B38-BFF503F66499@khera.org> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 13:01:03 -0500 To: Mischa Peters , freebsd ports From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-RPI-SA-Score: undef - spam-scanning disabled X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) on 128.113.2.3 Cc: Subject: Re: Subversion 1.3.0-rc2 X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 18:01:08 -0000 At 10:00 AM -0500 11/28/05, Vivek Khera wrote: >On Nov 28, 2005, at 8:49 AM, Mischa Peters wrote: > >>It would also be nice to know why there is an RC in /usr/ports, >>and why there isn't a subversion-devel tree. >> > >Thanks to your earlier warning, I avoided upgrading subversion... > >I too also wonder about why stable port versions are replaced >with pre-release software in ports. This seems like just a bad >choice by the maintainer, but I'm not sure if it violates any >policies of the ports system. Perhaps there should be some >policy regarding stability of software. And subversion is a particularly bad port to be "adventurous" with, since it serves such an important role for the people who use it. ...but with that said, I should also note that I upgraded to the subversion 1.3.0-rc2 port (I happened to do it the very evening before Mischa Peters sent the first warning message!). I have not seen any problems. The projects I use it for are admittedly small, so that probably doesn't mean much. On the other hand, I also don't see many reports of other people having trouble with this release-candidate version. Do you have any backups of your repository? (disclaimer: I am not an expert in subversion, I am just experimenting with it for a few of my projects...) -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu