Re: stabilize means STABILIZE (was: svn commit: rev 7961 - trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc)

Crap. Seems my brain is melting from trying to do too many things at
once today. Need to concentrate on #1601 and not do email for a
while! :-)

However, to clear up any confusion I may have caused:

kfogel@collab.net writes:
> 1.0-stabilization branch. I don't think Tobias's commit should be
> reverted, and obviously Julian was acting in good faith. Just from
> this point on, let's please be more conservative.

Since Tobias *didn't* commit, please ignore that comment.

> We definitely need to lose the attitude of "Gotta cram this new UI
> into the trunk before the 1.0 branch, so it's Right for 1.0." There
> will still have to be UI improvements after 1.0 no matter what, we
> need to accept that.

Please apply this reasoning to the commit Tobias didn't make but was
considering :-).

> Regarding Mike Pilato's proposed fix for issue #1093: that would be a
> prime candidate for the three +1's. Suggest that we use the issue
> tracker for recording votes (and if a proposed patch doesn't have an
> issue, then it needs to get one).

Mike realized there were more interface complexities here, and has
dropped the idea of getting this into 1.0 -- high sanity, IMHO. He'll
attach his patch to the issue and unassign it from himself.

-Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Dec 11 17:55:17 2003