I'd really like to see svn:externals restructured a bit. Right now
svn:externals is not nearly as good as CVS modules (which kindof goes
against the whole "building a better CVS" idea).
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 6:42 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Roadmap for 1.1
> Hmmm. You know what? Let's just have the roadmap discussion here.
> I've removed the "[placeholder]" bit from the Subject line, but left
> other threading metadata intact.
> Originally, I had wanted to come back to the list with a beautiful,
> shiny, detailed proposal with lots of justifications and subpoints and
> whatnot. But the responses so far show that many people *already*
> have ideas for 1.1. Therefore, it's probably better to figure out the
> roadmap iteratively on this list (Greg Stein suggested the same in a
> private mail). Sure, it may take longer, but everyone will have a
> stake in the final result.
> Here's what we've got so far. If I left anything out, it's only by
> accident, please follow up with the missing item. I haven't attached
> the names of the suggesters, since it's the suggestions themselves
> we're interested in:
> * l10n (also known as i18n or "that gettext thang")
> * Locking (reserved checkouts)
> * Issue 1093 and friends (diff-follows-copy-history, etc)
> * Straighten out Java bindings
> * Improved release procedures & scripts
> * Full DeltaV compliance (called "pie in the sky" :-) )
> * In-repos ACLs (may be intertwined with reserved checkouts work)
> * True rename support, at least in the repository
> * symlink support
> * "What about plug-in client-side diffs?"
> * Fix N specific bugs (many in issue tracker are already marked as
> "1.1", though that set is not written in stone of course)
> Let's not get down to actual voting or anything like that at this
> point. And, let's not talk about dates just yet. Rather, let's start
> with some questions:
> Does anyone see anything on this list that looks hard or impossible,
> given our API guidelines, for a 1.1 release?
> Do we think anything on this list would definitely take more than
> (say) six months to design and implement?
> Are there other things you would like to see on this list?
> (Even among items that everyone agrees are possible for 1.1, there
> will probably have to be a winnowing process eventually. But let's
> start by getting all the ideas on the table, then see what looks
> All right, let's hear it!... :-)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Thu Apr 1 18:43:43 2004