A minimum level of support would be a good thing to agree on. Bear in mind the pre-stated complexities in handling too many supported installations. Maybe start at the baseline of 2.2x apache support and see if a volunteer is able to deliver builds for that?
Regards, Troy From: Bojan Resnik [mailto:resn...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, 3 March 2010 8:32 PM To: users@subversion.apache.org Subject: Re: Tigris binary packages for Windows 2010/3/3 Olivier Sannier <obo...@free.fr> Troy Simpson wrote: For base-level support, we narrowed that down to apache 2.2x. Do we really need to support all the python builds? They were a great service from D.J. Heap, but now that we don't have that, do we really need to ditch all windows builds? What we could look at is a standard base-level windows build that most people use. Personally, I just use a windows client, as do many users - I don't even use the apache bindings, nor do many windows users. We could leave specialised builds to teams who want to support them which in theory would make the job at this end much easier. Well, I, for one, would need the Apache 2.2 bindings but I do not need the Python bindings at all, which I suspect most users don't either. So basic binaries with 2.2 support would be perfect for starters Agreed, Apache 2.2 bindings are must for me as well. Python and Ruby bindings would be nice, but our process doesn't depend on those. -- Bojan Resnik
