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

Re: stabilize means STABILIZE (was: svn commit: rev 7961 - trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc)

From: Erik Huelsmann <e.huelsmann_at_gmx.net>
Date: 2003-12-10 17:16:35 CET

Feeling spoken to, I just have to react to this.

> We agreed to branch, because the stabilization period will be
> short, but I think we're going to do that just after 0.35, which is
> beta. Right now we're still in alpha.

This is my understanding of the situation too.

> > We can clean and fix and clean and fix and clean and fix for the next
> six
> > damn years. How about we stop and get 1.0 out the door instead?

This is all so true, but I believe I'm not interfering with core development
and neither am I taking lots of time of the core development team. I don't
think that my understanding of different functions in the big picture is big
enough to tacle any big issues. I can, however, contribute to the codebase by
trying to make error messages consistent and find leaking temporary files.
That way, the core development team can - in my opinion - concentrate on the
more important tasks at hand... If you (all) want me or Julian to stop
committing, that's fine. Just tell me so. Submitting patches for review prior to
committing is what we both have been doing for many of the contributed cleanups.

> > If you're
> > about to type 'svn commit' ask yourself: do we really need this? do our
> > users need this for 1.0? is this an improvement so fantastic that it
> > *must* go into the codebase? Does that APR -> svn_io change have to
> > happen? Do we have to fix that error message? Does the comment *really*
> > need to change? Most likely: no. Not at all.
> We're still in alpha, and none of the changes you're talking about have
> been destablizing. (Even Julian's didn't break anything, as far as I
> know, although it certainly made the code unclean.)

Exactly my understanding of the situation. No, there was no *need* to have
it in Subversion 1.0. On the other hand do I feel that we can save a lot of
time spent on support and make a generally good impression if the program look
good. That is what I'm trying to go for.

As far as the changes for either the error messages or the svn_io_*
interface not going in: these were explicitly granted by Karl. Once again: Just tell
me stop. No need to get excited about and I won't take it personal. You - and
I - want to get 1.0 and a good product out the door. It seems to me we have
a common goal :-)

> > We're shooting for 1.0. Treat the trunk appropriately.
> We're not really at that point yet. There are certainly a lot of
> changes which wouldn't be appropriate for late alpha, but cleanups are
> still fine.

Ok. Then we will have an explicit moment starting at which commits are not
fine anymore: the moment of branching?

Just wanting to not-be-in-the-way and help,


+++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++
Neu: Preissenkung für MMS und FreeMMS! http://www.gmx.net
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 10 17:17:10 2003

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.