[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: What's left TODO for 1.6.x?

From: Neels Janosch Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:43:51 +0100

Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> This mail was going to be about a new branch date for 1.6.x, but I noticed that
>> there are still a few items labeled "Blocker" in TODO-1.6. They are reproduced
>> below:
>>
>> * Other items
>>
>> - implement or back out svn_wc_queue_committed2()
>>
>> - back out svn_wc__adm_{save,get}_pristine_path, since gstein has
>> found another way to access the necessary data. (leave the new
>> shared state stuff in there, however)
>>
>> * Actually document how to build with SQLite (ie, make the part in
>> INSTALL not blank, explain how to build against a newer version
>> of SQLite than what may be installed in your system, figure out
>> if the text in sqlite.m4 about being able to use a sqlite/
>> subdirectory is in any way true, etc etc)
>>
>> Are there any volunteers to tackle these above issues? They don't look too
>> difficult, but I'm personally not very familiar with any of them.
>>
>> If these issues can be reasonably accomplished in the next week, is there any
>> reason not to branch 1.6.x on Dec. 12?
>
> So is tree conflicts ready now or have they just not declared stuff in TO-DO?

We have removed our TODO items for 1.6 because we resolved them. So, yes,
we're ready.

One thing remains, which is entirely up to gstein at the moment. He's
pointed out that our storing of tree-conflicts info using yet another new
data structuring protocol is undesirable, to the point that he thinks it's a
1.6 blocker. After we couldn't be bothered to do something about it, Greg
said he'd fix it himself. Sounds like he's still busy with it.

I also see we've got a branch floating that I thought had been merged
already (merge-skips-obstructions). I'll have a look. It's not a blocker
anyway, AFAIK.

(And there are obviously undiscovered bugs and rackety usage scenarios
around which remain to be discovered and fixed as we go along. And there's
the problem with not detecting tree-conflicts caused by changes deep within
a directory, which we're not going to resolve in 1.6 because it needs diff
to be fixed.)

The answer is still yes, we, the tree-conflicts folks not including gstein,
are ready for a branch. Julian, I'm not running over your mouth, am I?

~Neels

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=980954

Received on 2008-12-08 10:41:40 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.