Michael Price <mprice@atl.lmco.com> writes:
> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su> writes:
> > Ah! I see the bug. Cmpilato pointed it out -- it's a bug in the
> > dumpfile parser. I'll fix it now and commit soon.
> > Michael Price, this should probably go into 0.20.1.
>
> Well, I've seen developers "veto" changes going into a patch release
> because they weren't regressions. Since this bug has been present
> forever its not really a regression.
>
> So perhaps now is a good time for everyone to clarify for me exactly
> what should and should not go into a patch release. Did I miss the
> section in the docs that covers this issue?
We could come up with some guidelines, but even if we do in the end it
will often come down to a judgement call on a case-by-case basis.
Every patch we introduce can cause regressions, the recent "relative
path" patch being an example. The known benefits of each patch have
to be weighed against the potential for introducing unknown problems.
In this particular case there are good arguments in favour of adding
the dump patch, for instance we cannot really change the DB schema
until we have released a tarball with a working dump. On the other
hand the dump/load code doesn't have much in the way of regression
tests.
--
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Mar 21 21:53:34 2003