[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Vacation from the Subversion project

From: Jostein Chr. Andersen <jostein_at_josander.net>
Date: 2005-05-23 21:32:20 CEST

On Monday 23 May 2005 20.26, Max Bowsher wrote:
> kfogel@collab.net wrote:
...
> > Unless someone's going to pick up those branches and work on them
> > actively, I suggest we just remove them. They can always be
> > restored later, after all.
> >
> > Jostein, it's these two, right?
> >
> > innosetup-hsuninsfix-4x-1.1.x/
> > innosetup-hsuninsfix-5x-1.2.x/

Yes, this is the ones, but additionally, I have some comments to Max'
posting below:

> >> I will monitor the lists and the #svn*'s and respond and
> >> participate when I feel for it. However: I will try to keep my
> >> heartbeat frequency below 60 bpm's as much as possible.
>
> Jostein: Without doing any further work on the branches, could you
> comment on whether you did not +1 the changes in STATUS yourself
> because you were uncertain about their correctness, or just because
> you didn't realize you could vote?

I think it was because I forgot it under the stress and the noise or
something. I have voted for my own items in the STATUS file before if i
recall it right. Right now, I don't want to even touch the Subversion
repository with latex glows and a "read only capable subversion client"
if such a thing exists.

> Also, is there any further description of what exactly the bug that
> these changes fix is - perhaps somewhere in the mail archives? If you
> got any information about the bug solely in private email, could you
> post details to the list?

It's from one or two complaints on the user list. It was the author of
the the extended uninstall program (UninsHs), which adds" add/repair"
capabilities to the installation system that emailed me the fixes
(independent of the postings on the user list).

The problem was that the UninsHs (which is called from the start menu or
the controlpanel's add/remove programs entry) often could not find the
installer's remove program (unins000.exe) when the user's decision was
to remove the Subversion installation.

> Karl: The 1.2.x branch should probably just be committed to trunk
> (there have been no changes to the files concerned since 1.2.x
> forked). At that point, the existing branch becomes a standard
> temporary backport branch. (Branch necessary due to some renaming on
> trunk).

Agree, +1 on committing it to the trunk. The uninstall capabilities of
the Windows installer is broken without it. This fixes is already
included in svn-1.2.0-rc4-setup.exe (had to do what it takes in order to
deliver a working installer) and everyone seems to be happy about it; I
don't know how many downloads the rc4 got (the stats.tigris.org is not
updated anymore), but it's probably many thousands; in other words:
tried and tested.

Jostein

-- 
http://www.josander.net/en/contact/

  • application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Mon May 23 21:33:18 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.