On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 5:24 AM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 07:39, Ivan Zhakov <i...@apache.org> wrote: >>... >> I have reverted this change because I don't understand the goals. What >> you are trying to achieve? > > What we discussed back in July, regarding clarity of what that page > links to. Some of the pages did not provide Apache Subversion binaries > for the server component, so I marked them "client only". Some of the > landing pages had no indication of how to get an Apache Subversion > binary (like the VisualSVN, Apple, and Sunfreeware pages), so I > removed those. > > People use packages.html to find binary packages of Apache Subversion. > They scan the page, and find a link that should work for them (given > the annotations we make for that link) and then they click it. The > target page should have Apache Subversion on it. > > If it does not... then why should it be listed on the page for people > *looking* for those binaries?
I get what you are trying to accomplish but it feels like you are looking at this through a "Linux distro" frame of mind. What I mean by that is that someone can produce a Subversion RPM (as an example) that is designed to work with the packaging system from Red Hat and declares a dependency on httpd etc to deliver a proper mod_dav_svn. But you cannot realistically do the same for Windows. Someone who wants to download a Subversion "server" should also probably receive Apache httpd and some other stuff in the same package. So even then it is not a distribution of just "OUR binaries". VisualSVN makes it clear that you are downloading Apache Subversion binaries plus a GUI for the Microsoft Management Console to configure it. UberSVN and Subversion Edge make it very clear that you are downloading Apache Subversion binaries plus a web-based GUI to configure and manage the server. VisualSVN and UberSVN are both free. Subversion Edge is free AND open source. I am not clear where the line is that we are drawing. I am sure there are a handful of Windows users out there that would like a zip file that just has mod_dav_svn in it, but the majority of users would rather get a working distribution that does not force them to hand edit configuration files. That is not how Windows applications are expected to be installed or configured. I do not see the argument that we are helping users by steering them away from those links. BTW, CollabNet does provide plain server binaries but they are not clearly linked on the download page we provide. So I am OK with the edits you made with the caveat that I do not see the problem with VisualSVN, UberSVN and SVNEdge. That said, I am working to get the download page redesigned. When/if that happens if we have the server binaries available on the same page I intend to remove the "client-only" text. I think it should be removed anyway, but I will not put my interests ahead of those of the project if that feeling is not shared. -- Thanks Mark Phippard http://markphip.blogspot.com/
