Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote on Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 19:15:16 +0530: > I have no interest in politics, and I don't want to speculate why > svnmucc isn't built by `make` by default.
Because it lives in tools/. > I would like to keep this > discussion focused purely on the benefits and trade-offs of including > svnrdump in subversion/svnrdump. If the discussion deviates from this, > I would NOT like to be included in it- I mentioned svnmucc as a relevant example. Nobody will force you to participate in discussions you aren't interested in. > I'm a just a new partial > committer and I don't know how your organization works. "Your" organization? I hope that you consider yourself a part of this community. You ARE a committer. > The major downside of including svnrdump now is that users might > complain that it doesn't work and will file some bugs. However, being > a simple client-side utility, I doubt it'll cause any major > catastrophies, even if it's used in production. Indeed. But it WILL get included either way --- the question is how we package it. > Ofcourse I understand that having authored svnrdump, it's possible > that my personal interests have clouded my judgement. I've kept this > in mind, and tried to be as unbiased as possible. I'll appeal to > everyone else to do the same- do what you think is in the best > interest of the greater good. > +1, let's keep this discussion professional. I'm trying to do that too (but your tone makes me feel you might have taken offence at some of my remarks...?) > -- Ram
