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

Re: svn commit: r8155 - branches/1.0-stabilization

From: <kfogel_at_collab.net>
Date: 2004-01-05 16:36:12 CET

"Erik Huelsmann" <e.huelsmann@gmx.net> writes:
> Which leads to the conclusion that the Subversion community is in any (or a
> combination) of the situations below:
> 1) The community does not know how to stabilize and get to 1.0
> 2) Subversion is 1.0-feature complete, but not quite ready for an API freeze
> in the current API state
> 3) There is uncertainty about the state of the releases after 1.0 and people
> are trying to squeeze in what they think is needed in months to come.
> Personally I don't believe there's a problem with (1), but I do think what
> you see comes from both (2) and (3).
> There has been a lot of work done to get 1.0-completeness, but next to no
> discussion about the readyness for the API as the final 1.0 version. Ofcourse
> nobody has had time to discuss that as everybody was working towards the
> complete function set.

Agree with you about (1)

There's something to what you say re (2) and (3), but the current
process is probably the best way to achieve a consensus about our API
needs. Without the pressure of the upcoming 1.0 release, we would
have more leisurely, abstract discussions about APIs, but on the other
hand, little would get done because there would be no urgency.

Also, a large number of 1.0 proposals is not necessarily a bad sign.
Have seen this happen in other projects, when stabilization starts
getting serious. Everyone suddenly realizes that The Time Is Now, so
they stop putting things off. It's not a bad thing, IMHO -- as long
as we don't let it push back the actual release date, which I don't
think we will.

> On top of that there still has been no conlusion to the Post-1.0 release
> cycle leading to possibly different ideas of when a next function update will
> see light. This might influence people to push functionality for 1.0...

Good point; will follow up to that in a separate mail.

> On a side note: I don't find it strange that the date-parser is getting
> attention just now. It is exactly what point (2) is about. The
> current situation has worked, but is it a state we want to support
> forever? That's the question which has come up now that we are
> leading upto 1.0.



To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jan 5 17:29:40 2004

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.