> I'm going to get on a plane soon and be (more or less) offline for
> most of next week. Is there someone who can take on the "keeping
> track of the big picture" role for 1.3.0?
As I said off-list, I'm willing to take up the task. Whether I'll be up
to it or not would, of course, be another problem alltogether! One of
the problems I have is that most of the showstoppers are binding issues,
an area of the code of which I have no knowledge. So as far as helping
track down the problems and fixing them, I won't be very useful I'm afraid.
Also, I've just migrated my mail system away from thunderbird to an
fetchmail+maildrop+IMAP setup. It's still in teething, but I believe it
is now working properly, so I should be able to keep up to speed with
the list and assume my role. If I seem to go strangely unresponsive,
please ping me over IRC so that I can figure out how many lists have
unsubscribed me because of spurious bounces :-).
> * Problems between a 1.3.x client and a 1.2.1 server, pointed out by
> John Peacock, who narrowed it down to having something to do with
> Neon 0.25.0 (since 0.24.7 doesn't seem to have the problem). See
> and its followups for details.
I'm off to sleep soon, but if the problem is still there by the time I
come back, I'll try building on my machines to see if I can reproduce
this. From the thread discussion, it seems that either Neon 0.25 has a
bug, or svn has a bug which is triggered by Neon 0.25 and not by 0.24.
In any case, the RC isn't going anywhere until we find out what is going on.
> * The Ruby bindings seg fault in their test suite if you build with
> "--enable-pool-debug=yes". John Szakmeister, in this message
> starts it off, then David James asks Kouhei to take a look here:
> [Meta comment: Should it worry us that there's basically only person
> who knows how to keep the SWIG-Ruby bindings in shape? We have a
> minimum two-person-per-language policy when it comes to translations;
> shouldn't we at least have the same for the bindings? Kouhei, this
> is not a complaint about you, of course; you're doing great stuff,
> it's just a question of what would happen if you took a vacation. :-)
It would be nice, to ensure the long-term stability of the Ruby
bindings. FWIW, I'm +1 on stating that a minimum two-devs-per-language
in bindings is very strongly desired, if not mandatory.
> * According to David James in this message:
> "John Peacock pointed out some build issues with the Perl bindings,
> where installed libraries link to build-dir libraries. Max, will
> reverting r16486 fix the problem? If so, perhaps we should revert
> r16486 and propose the revert for backport to the 1.3.x branch. See:
> I don't think there's been any answer to David's question yet.
> * r16693, a simple crash fix in libsvn_ra_dav. It's already got two
> votes in 1.3.x/STATUS, just needs one more person to review and vote.
An update on the these two. Max approved and merged r16693, and has
nominated r16704, which reverts r16486. The merge needs one more
approval to go through, if someone fluent in the bindings build system
could do that the list of problems would already be halved.
> Anyway, I wish I could see this through to the RC tarball, but it
> looks like there won't be time. Someone please be shepherd...
If everyone's okay with it, my lack of in-depth knowledge of the
problematic areas means I can hold Karl's cattle prod while he's away
and act like everything's under control in his stead and save someone
else the bother.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Fri Oct 14 03:12:16 2005