From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24256 invoked by alias); 17 Nov 2011 19:05:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 24238 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Nov 2011 19:05:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=3.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_THEBAT X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mr0.ht-systems.ru (HELO mr0.ht-systems.ru) (78.110.50.55) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:04:58 +0000 Received: from [91.76.237.227] (helo=darkdragon.lan) by mr0.ht-systems.ru with esmtpa (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1RR7GX-0003Fo-RX; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 23:04:53 +0400 Received: from [192.168.1.10] (HELO daemon2.darkdragon.lan) by daemon2 (Office Mail Server 0.8.12 build 08053101) with SMTP; Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:52:07 -0000 Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 19:05:00 -0000 From: Andrey Repin Reply-To: Andrey Repin Message-ID: <531196777.20111117225207@mtu-net.ru> To: Jeremy Bopp , cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Rolling back to 1.6.x Subversion In-Reply-To: <4EC53A81.3040307@bopp.net> References: <1872837516.20111117113945@mtu-net.ru> <4EC52A2C.1030905@bopp.net> <4EC53A81.3040307@bopp.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00311.txt.bz2 Greetings, Jeremy Bopp! > Thank you for confirming my memory regarding these format changes. > Still, while it makes sense for the project to make backward > incompatible changes at times, it still seems odd that the new clients > wouldn't support using the working copies from at least 1 minor version > back in order to ease interoperability between SVN client implementations. Unfortunatelly, changes in WC format for 1.7 was QUITE drastic... As said, you can find more info on http://subversion.apache.org/ This is the wrong mailing list to discuss them. > I could see that the new clients wouldn't *create* older version working > copies in order to encourage adoption of the changes, but it wouldn't > seem too hard on the face of it to keep around a compatibility layer > from the last minor version in order to *use* an older working copy. > It's the maintainers' decision how they build their project, of course. > I just find this aspect surprising. -- WBR, Andrey Repin (anrdaemon@freemail.ru) 17.11.2011, <22:50> Sorry for my terrible english... -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple