You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@red-bean.com> on 2006/08/19 16:02:31 UTC
defining 'core' subversion (was Re: maintaining a list of svn: revprops)
On 8/19/06, Eric Gillespie <ep...@pretzelnet.org> wrote:
> > Stuff in tools/ *is* in the main source tree, and is a supported part
> > of Subversion.
>
> make install still doesn't install them, right? That makes
> tools/ a ghetto. I feel the same way about the bindings.
Ooh. Now that's an interesting criteria. I have to admit, the fact
that all the C-language svn* binaries get installed makes them feel
much more 'official' than anything in tools/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: defining 'core' subversion (was Re: maintaining a list of svn: revprops)
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On 8/19/06, Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@red-bean.com> wrote:
> Ooh. Now that's an interesting criteria. I have to admit, the fact
> that all the C-language svn* binaries get installed makes them feel
> much more 'official' than anything in tools/.
FWIW, I think svnsync is going to become a critical tool for a
significant amount of people. Hence, it should be treated as part of
the svn 'core' - regardless of how we define 'core'.
As to how we define the 'core', I agree that anything we choose to
install with 'make install' should be assumed to be a part of the
'core' until proven otherwise. =) -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: defining 'core' subversion
Posted by Eric Gillespie <ep...@pretzelnet.org>.
Karl Fogel <kf...@google.com> writes:
> For example, a hook script might be officially supported, but we can't
> install it automatically, because not only do we not know where the
Sure we can, we install it to ${datadir}/subversion/hooks .
--
Eric Gillespie <*> epg@pretzelnet.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: defining 'core' subversion
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@google.com>.
Karl Fogel <kf...@google.com> writes:
> That's why I think this way:
>
> 1) Anything we install via 'make install' is "official".
> 2) Some things we don't install are also "official" (see tools/).
> 3) Other things we don't install are not "official" (see contrib/).
>
> Now, there could be more things in (2). For example, svn_load_dirs.pl
> could get installed by default. We just happen not to do that, for
> historical reasons, not because our plan for world domination tells us
> not to install it or anything.
I meant to write "there could be more things in (1)", of course.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: defining 'core' subversion
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@google.com>.
"Ben Collins-Sussman" <su...@red-bean.com> writes:
> On 8/19/06, Eric Gillespie <ep...@pretzelnet.org> wrote:
>> > Stuff in tools/ *is* in the main source tree, and is a supported part
>> > of Subversion.
>>
>> make install still doesn't install them, right? That makes
>> tools/ a ghetto. I feel the same way about the bindings.
>
> Ooh. Now that's an interesting criteria. I have to admit, the fact
> that all the C-language svn* binaries get installed makes them feel
> much more 'official' than anything in tools/.
It would be nice to have a simple, clear definition. But I don't
think things are that easy here.
For example, a hook script might be officially supported, but we can't
install it automatically, because not only do we not know where the
repositories are, but even if we did (say, by installing said hook at
'svnadmin create' time), we wouldn't know what config options to fill
out to make the hook behave usefully.
Solving all those issues would basically mean wrapping Subversion in a
friendly administrative interface, which would be a project about as
large as Subversion itself :-).
That's why I think this way:
1) Anything we install via 'make install' is "official".
2) Some things we don't install are also "official" (see tools/).
3) Other things we don't install are not "official" (see contrib/).
Now, there could be more things in (2). For example, svn_load_dirs.pl
could get installed by default. We just happen not to do that, for
historical reasons, not because our plan for world domination tells us
not to install it or anything.
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: defining 'core' subversion (was Re: maintaining a list of svn: revprops)
Posted by Peter Samuelson <pe...@p12n.org>.
[David Glasser]
> Going one step more: if repackagers will install it in their
> "subversion" package by default, then it's more real, and most that I
> see package up whatever "make install" does. (So on Debian, for
> example, the subversion package will give you svn*, and you need a
> special subversion-tools to get mailer.py)
Oh, I wouldn't take our debian packages too seriously in that regard.
One thing that's been on my todo list for a _long_ time and still
hasn't gotten done is to sort through tools/ and contrib/ to see what
other things should be added to our 'subversion-tools' binary package.
At the top of the list will probably be svnmerge.py and svn2cl (we get
regular requests for both), even though they're "only" in contrib.
Re: defining 'core' subversion (was Re: maintaining a list of svn: revprops)
Posted by David Glasser <gl...@mit.edu>.
On 8/19/06, Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> wrote:
> +1, if it gets installed via 'make install' it seems more "real" to me.
Going one step more: if repackagers will install it in their
"subversion" package by default, then it's more real, and most that I
see package up whatever "make install" does. (So on Debian, for
example, the subversion package will give you svn*, and you need a
special subversion-tools to get mailer.py)
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@mit.edu | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: defining 'core' subversion (was Re: maintaining a list of svn:
revprops)
Posted by David Summers <da...@summersoft.fay.ar.us>.
On Sat, 19 Aug 2006, Garrett Rooney wrote:
> On 8/19/06, Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@red-bean.com> wrote:
>> On 8/19/06, Eric Gillespie <ep...@pretzelnet.org> wrote:
>>
>> > > Stuff in tools/ *is* in the main source tree, and is a supported part
>> > > of Subversion.
>> >
>> > make install still doesn't install them, right? That makes
>> > tools/ a ghetto. I feel the same way about the bindings.
>>
>> Ooh. Now that's an interesting criteria. I have to admit, the fact
>> that all the C-language svn* binaries get installed makes them feel
>> much more 'official' than anything in tools/.
>
> +1, if it gets installed via 'make install' it seems more "real" to me.
>
+1. That's almost always been my definition of "official".
--
David Wayne Summers "Linux: Because reboots are for hardware upgrades!"
david@summersoft.fay.ar.us PGP Key: http://summersoft.fay.ar.us/~david/pgp.txt
PGP Key fingerprint = 0B44 B118 85CC F4EC 7021 1ED4 1516 5B78 E320 2001
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: defining 'core' subversion (was Re: maintaining a list of svn: revprops)
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On 8/19/06, Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@red-bean.com> wrote:
> On 8/19/06, Eric Gillespie <ep...@pretzelnet.org> wrote:
>
> > > Stuff in tools/ *is* in the main source tree, and is a supported part
> > > of Subversion.
> >
> > make install still doesn't install them, right? That makes
> > tools/ a ghetto. I feel the same way about the bindings.
>
> Ooh. Now that's an interesting criteria. I have to admit, the fact
> that all the C-language svn* binaries get installed makes them feel
> much more 'official' than anything in tools/.
+1, if it gets installed via 'make install' it seems more "real" to me.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org