On 11/17/06, William A. Rowe, Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John O'Hara wrote:
> I don't think its the same as releasing another projects code.
> A good example is when SubVersion included APR as part of its code
> base. No one would have confused that as a release of APR, and
> it was patched and modded, and the APR team were kept in the loop.
Actually, in spite of a wide open-door policy from the apr team to the
svn and httpd developer communities, it indicates a breakdown of apr
meeting the needs of svn (it's second consumer) and in svn failing to
effectively participate in apr. So I actually find it a bad example :)
That's total BS. The svn and httpd teams worked quite hard to get
their fixes in to APR, and I'm not aware of them either distributing
patched releases, only snapshots, and eventually releases. The only
reason that releases and snapshots were distributed was that for a
long time you couldn't expect to find APR installed on most machines,
and the svn team wanted to avoid requiring people to scramble around
looking for dependencies. These days it isn't even distributed as
part of the default release tarball, but as part of a separate deps
tarball that just holds extra dependencies.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
