Karl Fogel <kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net> writes:
> cmpilato@collab.net writes:
> > I really wanted to get this into 0.19, but my DAV testing setup is
> > hosed (and it apparently isn't because of this patch, as reversion
> > doesn't fix anything). Could someone please apply and test? If all
> > is well, let me know, and I'll commit up the change.
>
> Just a thought:
>
> I have absolutely no objection to this particular change going into
> 0.19. But in general, we should avoid rushing to get an unplanned
> change into an imminent release.
While I agree with this sentiment on a general basis, I can't help but
to laugh at the reality of the situation. The 0.19 "planned change"
that I finished today is going to get only *barely* more testing than
this change. By your argument, we should always be releasing several
days behind HEAD, and therefore should be adjusting our
milestones/dates accordingly.
> I mean, what difference does it make if this gets committed before
> 0.19 or immediately afterwards?
It's the same benefit that always follows from getting good
functionality into an earlier release. The quicker you fix a known
bug or prevent an unknown one, the fewer people that run into it.
Keep in mind that when talking about releases, a fix today versus
tomorrow is not just a 24-hour difference -- it's a 3-week difference
(until the next tarball goes out).
> That "I've got to scramble to get my change into this upcoming
> release" urge is treacherous :-).
Scramble? Dream on. This change was done in 20 minutes, and *should*
have been thoroughly tested by now. In fact, it's been tested over
ra_local, but as you know, my dav setup is hosed. :-(
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Mar 7 07:35:49 2003