On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On 7/14/07, Lieven Govaerts <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> >Mark Phippard wrote:
> >> Finally, I am not proposing any kind of high ceremony process or
> >> document here. Just a place where people can record things that
> >> either they want to get done themselves or maybe no needs to be done
> >> before we can release. This issue with the fsfs transaction names is
> >> a good a recent example.
> >+1 on your proposal. I personally favor using the issue tracker as TODO
> >list, it's already there and it allows us to assign issues and set
I've moved all the Merge Tracking tasks previously listed in
notes/merge-tracking.txt into the issue tracker, marked them with the
"merge-tracking" keyword (and "bite-sized" where appropriate), and set
milestones (which are obviously open to negotiation if folks out there
are interested in stepping up to the plate and doing some
> >There's one thing I want to add: we also have another source of TODO
> >items and that's the list of XFail-ing tests in the test suite. Not only
> >do they indicate certain issues or missing features, the fact that
> >someone took the time to write those tests shows a genuine interest in
> >getting the issue fixed or the feature implemented.
> >I want to propose - as a best practice, not as a strict project
> >requirement - that we add tests or placeholders for those features or
> >issues we want to get fixed in 1.5 and include a reference to those
> >tests in the issue description. I know we already have them for the
> >'--depth' feature, it'd good to know which of them Karl considers as
> >mandatory for 1.5 release.
> It seems like XFAIL's that are going to live in the code for more than
> a few weeks ought to have an issue associated with them right in the
> text description. That would make it easy to have an extended
> discussion around the test and see when it is planned to be fixed, or
> what is blocking it.
Good idea! How about adding it as a guideline to hacking.html?
> I know for example there are two copy tests that XPASS on Windows if
> you build with APR 1.2.8. It was nice that those tests referenced
> this in the description so that I did not waste a lot of time hunting
> it down.
The remaining loose ends for 1.5.0 still need to be enumerated, and
tossed into the issue tracker (even if only at a very coarse
granularity). Here's a starting point -- just a strawman -- for the
list of remaining loose ends:
- 1.4.x/1.5 client/server incompatibilities. (Reported by glasser in
- Sparse directories/--depth option
- See the "Current Status" section of notes/sparse-directories.txt.
- Review "TODO(sd)" comments in the code.
- Progress callback busted between May 16 and June 21. (Reported by
Dan C. from Google in
- Outstanding SVN DAV library config issues?
- Remaining abort()'s?
- (What else...?)
- XFailing tests
- (Which in particular absolutely need to be resolved...?)
- Changes needed by Subclipse...?
- Changes needed by TortoiseSVN...?
- Language bindings updates for API changes...?
Received on Tue Jul 17 01:38:09 2007
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored