Re: request for comments from developers about issues 1004 and 901

"SteveKing" <steveking@gmx.ch> writes:
> In most issues marked as post-1.0 you usually post "a patch earlier
> than 1.0 will be most welcome, of course".
> But to make patches, some discussion is needed first.

That's true, sorry -- maybe I should be more judicious about which
issues I say that about. For example, a small, discrete issue like
#1209 (about path escaping) is one where it's easy to review a patch
before 1.0 and just fix it.

But an issue that requires discussion and (likely) a complex fix is a
different matter. In that case, the effort required is part of the
reason we put it in Post-1.0 in the first place. #901 is one of
those.

> Does that mean that everything marked as post-1.0 won't be
> accepted or discussed about?

No, it means we exercise judgement on a case-by-case basis, like the
large-brained hominids we are :-).

> > By the way, I don't see in the history of issue 901 where it "got
> > closed". Issue 1004 was closed, but as you say, that was about
> > cancellation checking, not progress reporting. But issue 901 looks
> > like it's still new (i.e., just opened, not "reopened").
>
> Sorry, mixed up the issue numbers. And issue 1004 wasn't just
> about the cancellation if you read the opening message of the issue.

Ah, thanks for clarifying.

-Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Aug 11 19:03:47 2003