Ben Reser <ben@reser.org> wrote on 10/04/2004 05:08:46 PM:
> On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 03:13:35PM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> > In general I would agree, however, this bug was pushed out there as a
> > "security fix" and didn't undergo the testing it should have. It
seems to
> > me that the problem this fix created ought to be addressed as quickly
as
> > it was introduced.
>
> I have no idea what you're talking about here. The fix was developed
> over a month or so. It was not put out quickly nor was it undertested.
> Unless your definition of undertesting is missing a bug.
Sorry, my mistake. In hindsight, I really have no idea what went into
producing that fix. As a user who monitors the list, I guess I was basing
it on the relatively short time between 1.1 RC3 and RC4.
> As far as 1.1.1, well I also don't see the reason to rush to do it.
> There are a number of other issues that probably should be fixed. When
> we have a good batch of those done, that's when we should do 1.1.1.
To me the issue is that 1.1 is a significant new stage for Subversion due
to FSFS and some of the other nice enhancements. It is a shame to mar the
new release with a performance regression of this magnitude.
Mark
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 5 02:32:09 2004