Re: svn binary packages for macOS
On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 1:42 PM Daniel Sahlberg wrote: > There has been some discussion but I don't think there was an actual > decision taken. So I'm throwing in a suggestion to add the following > text to packages.html (just below the regarding "larger collections of > software", and before the Centos Linux header): > > A condition to be listed is to provide "reasonably new" versions. >This should be interpreted as the latest patch release of any of the >supported versions (at the time of writing: either of 1.10.6 or 1.14.1). >The rule will be implemented with a fair amount of flexibility to >allow time to release new packages, as well as any considerations >regarding the release process. Please discuss at the href="mailto:users@subversion.apache.org";>Subversion users mailing >list. > > I believe it is reasonable to accept someone distributing only 1.10.6 > since there may be acceptable reasons not to distribute 1.14.1 (for > example dependencies that are not possible to build on a certain > platform). > > I added the "considerations regarding the release process" as a way to > ignore Linux distributions since they might ship what was current at > the time of their release and backport any important security fixes. It could be included directly in the text itself. For example: A condition to be listed is to keep current with security fixes by offering the latest supported patch release or by backporting security patches. The rule will be implemented with a fair amount of flexibility... Cheers, Nathan
Re: svn binary packages for macOS
Den tors 11 nov. 2021 kl 16:21 skrev Nathan Hartman : > > On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 1:42 PM Daniel Sahlberg > wrote: > > There has been some discussion but I don't think there was an actual > > decision taken. So I'm throwing in a suggestion to add the following > > text to packages.html (just below the regarding "larger collections of > > software", and before the Centos Linux header): > > > > A condition to be listed is to provide "reasonably new" versions. > >This should be interpreted as the latest patch release of any of the > >supported versions (at the time of writing: either of 1.10.6 or 1.14.1). > >The rule will be implemented with a fair amount of flexibility to > >allow time to release new packages, as well as any considerations > >regarding the release process. Please discuss at the >href="mailto:users@subversion.apache.org";>Subversion users mailing > >list. > > > > I believe it is reasonable to accept someone distributing only 1.10.6 > > since there may be acceptable reasons not to distribute 1.14.1 (for > > example dependencies that are not possible to build on a certain > > platform). > > > > I added the "considerations regarding the release process" as a way to > > ignore Linux distributions since they might ship what was current at > > the time of their release and backport any important security fixes. > > It could be included directly in the text itself. For example: > > A condition to be listed is to keep current with security fixes by >offering the latest supported patch release or by backporting >security patches. The rule will be implemented with a fair amount >of flexibility... Thanks for the feedback. I copied verbatim and committed as r1894956 Kind regards, Daniel
