Justifications for porting to 1.0.x, and meaning of "sandbox" [Re: svn commit: r8974 - branches/1.0.x]

breser@tigris.org wrote:
> Author: breser
> Date: Wed Mar 10 15:39:53 2004
> New Revision: 8974
>
> Modified:
> branches/1.0.x/STATUS
> Log:
> STATUS: Add 1.0.1 candidates for r8966, r8969 and Issue #1755
>
> Modified: branches/1.0.x/STATUS
> ==============================================================================
> --- branches/1.0.x/STATUS (original)
> +++ branches/1.0.x/STATUS Wed Mar 10 15:39:53 2004
> @@ -81,3 +81,22 @@
> externals in particular cases.
> Votes:
> +1: cmpilato
> +
> + * r8966
> + Use cpio to generate tarballs.
> + Justification: Tarballs built with GNU tar will not extract on platforms
> + without GNU tar due to filename length.

Fine: that describes a reasonably serious problem, so it's quite likely that we will agree to fix it.

> + Votes:
> +
> + * r8969
> + Do not copy doc/book/book/images into sandbox.
> + Justification: We end up with duplicate images dir and the files are
> + already there.

That's a fine description of the bug but not a justification of why this patch should go into the 1.0.x branch. Only important and/or safe bug fixes should be ported into the branch. Perhaps a better justification could be something like, "This wastes a large amount of space in the tarball [or whatever the truth is]" or "This doesn't cause much of a problem but the fix is simple and safe."

By the way, what I understand by the word "sandbox" is a place for playing around and making a mess, knowing that it can all be swept away afterwards, such as a sandpit for children to play in or a box of sand on or in which to do experiments with fire. Thus, in software terms, a temporary directory tree or repository in which to run tests or mess round with unstable software, after which you delete the whole thing. I'm not sure that this agrees with what you call a "sandbox" above.

> + Votes:
> +
> + * Issue #1775
> + Allow reverting a replaced file with no properties.
> + Justification: It's a bug.

Again, is it a bug with significant consequences or a simple and safe fix?

> + Notes: Patch on issue will require the regression test be moved to a
> + different file, because we don't have that file.
> + Votes:

Thanks for taking note of these issues and proposing them. I'm not saying that they don't belong on the branch, just that it isn't yet clear to me whether they do.

- Julian

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Mar 11 00:16:53 2004