svn commit: r1154380 - /subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS

[rh...@apache.org]

Author: rhuijben
Date: Fri Aug  5 21:00:08 2011
New Revision: 1154380

URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1154380&view=rev
Log:
* STATUS: Nominate a fix for yet another serf problem

Modified:
    subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS

Modified: subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS?rev=1154380&r1=1154379&r2=1154380&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS (original)
+++ subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS Fri Aug  5 21:00:08 2011
@@ -102,6 +102,16 @@ Candidate changes:
    Votes:
      +1: pburba
 
+ * r1154278, r1154379
+   Make 'svn ls' capable of listing Subversion 1.0-1.3 repositories using
+   ra_serf.
+   Justification:
+     We promised not to break backwards compatibility and it is not nice
+     that serf doesn't want to list the neon repository.
+     (Check svn ls http://svn.webdav.org/repos/projects/neon/)
+   Votes:
+     +1: rhuijben
+
 Veto-blocked changes:
 =====================
 
@@ -132,8 +142,9 @@ Veto-blocked changes:
      proxy concept that seems to be the strongest argument in favor of
      Serf's approach.  But that's not strictly germane here.)
 
-     rhuijben: Trivial problems like r1153138 should have been fixed a long
-     time ago if we don't want to delay releasing 1.7 on serf.
+     rhuijben: Trivial problems like r1153138 and less trivial compatibility
+     problems like r1154278 should have been fixed a long time ago if we don't
+     want to delay releasing 1.7.0 on this kind of serf problems.
 
      markphip: I understand why *we* would want Serf as default, so we can
      make it better, but it goes against all of the other conservatism in