On Tue, 2005-04-05 at 13:11 -0700, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 02:21:31PM -0500, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> > As has been discussed on IRC, copy_tests 25 is failing over DAV, not
> > because there's anything wrong in Subversion, but because the test is
> > expecting the wrong error message (the DAV error message differs from
> > the error message printed by other RA layers, apparently).
> >
> > Since Subversion itself is correct, here are my sigs for the .tar.gz
> > and .tar.bz2. However, I think it's a Bad Idea to release an RC that
> > has a test failing, for any reason. It makes us look sloppy and
> > causes doubts among the faithful. I'm not vetoing the release, but my
> > strong preference would be to not release rc1, fix the problem, and
> > reroll, making rc2 our first blessed release candidate I guess.
>
> How does everyone else feel about this? I'm inclined to just ship rc1
> since it's such a small issue with a note saying that we're aware that
> copy_tests.py test #25 fails. Fix it in rc2. Is it worth another day
> worth of delay to retest, reaquire signatures, etc... to fix a test that
> isn't really failing but is incomplete?
>
> I'm not sure it is. But if you guys think so I will gladly cut an rc2
> with a fix.
I'm really torn here, but I think I have to agree with you--let's push
rc1 out there, with the caveat that copy_tests.py #25 is an invalid
test, and we'll put that fix, along with other fixes, into rc2. It's
not like we're not going to have an rc2. :)
-Fitz
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 6 22:09:42 2005