On Mon, 2004-01-05 at 03:24, gstein@tigris.org wrote:
> Holy crap... there are a lot of suggestions for the 1.0 branch. How can
> this be called "stabilization" ?!!?!
Because almost all the changes are small and have a good reason to be in
1.0. And compared to our normal development rate, it's really not that
much.
I'd also like to note that "1.0 stabilization" came up on at least one
developer (me) by surprise, and was largely driven by a developer (Karl)
who seems to have a very optimistic perspective on how easy it will be
to fix or work around API problems in the post-1.0 world. Issue #999
would have been taken care of beforehand if I'd had a little more time,
for instance. I didn't ask to put off branching, but I'd like to see a
bit less reticence to fix API problems among the CollabNet crowd, since
that same crowd does not appear to have put much consideration into the
API before driving the stabilization process.
> unpredictable date formats.
> Votes:
> +1: mbk, ghudson, dionisos
> + -1: gstein (why such a change now? sheesh)
This is Not Okay in my book. A developer who only seems to have the
time for our mailing list once every few weeks comes in, shows no
evidence of having read the relevant mail threads, and just throws down
a veto with no substantial justification. No mail thread, no adherence
to the STATUS file's instructions about vetos, nothing.
The answer to "why such a change now?" is: we'd like not to get stuck
supporting a set of date formats which don't make sense. Should "3" be
a date? Should "yesterday 3 days ago 4"? The new code is very elegant,
easily extended, and thread-safe; the old code is awful and very
difficult to compatibly replace.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jan 5 17:45:31 2004