Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> Subversion 1.5.0-alpha1 is up for testing and signing. The magic
>> revision is r29540.
>>
>> http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.5.0-alpha1/
>>
>> As usual, signatures from full committers back to me, and enthusiastic
>> tester feedback is welcome. Because this is an alpha, we are relaxing
>> the signature requirement, and will only require 2 signatures on each
>> platform before release. At this point, though, this alpha is not yet
>> blessed for wide release, so please don't make it available to people
>> not interested in test-driving the new release.
>>
>> Also, distro package maintainers, please to NOT include any pre-release
>> builds, even blessed, into operating system distros. The reasons for not
>> doing so were very eloquently outlined by Karl in a mail, which is
>> summarized at the above address.
>>
>> The quick version is: we don't guarantee compatibility between the
>> pre-releases and the final release, so if people install the alpha, all
>> their repositories and working copies might break unrepairably when they
>> upgrade to 1.4.0 proper. We don't want that kind of bad publicity,
>> and neither do you.
>
> It appears that there have been several problems with this tarball, namely:
> * copy test 70 failure
> - fixed in r29559, backported in r29576
> * svnadmin test 12
> - fixed in r29491, backported in r29573
> * various ruby bindings test failures
> - These seem to go away using swig 1.3.31, and since we have a big
> warning in configure about using swig >1.3.31, I'll build the
> next release tarball using swig 1.3.31.
> * perl bindings test failures
> - These appear to be linkage related. I've been trying to dig to the
> root of the problem, but have been unsuccessful. I can get the
> tests to both pass and fail on trunk, but I haven't yet figured out
> what's going on. If somebody with a bit of swig-pl expertise could
> take a look at this, that'd be great.
> * export test 1 and svndumpfilter test 1 fail for pburba on Windows
> using ra_svn and bdb.
> - Can anybody else reproduce this?
>
> I'd like to roll alpha2 tomorrow, but the bindings problems (especially
> the perl bindings failures), make it seem like a futile effort. Should
> the bindings be blockers for alpha release? Should we just focus on the
> core code, and let then block on the bindings for beta releases?
I build Subversion using a custom RPM spec file that expects to build all the
bindings and it runs all the test suites.
So I would like to see bindings fixes be blockers for alpha releases so I can
get a good RPM for svn alpha for internal testing. Right now I can't easily
test my application that uses svn as a backend database and I would like to do so.
Also, are there fixes available to support swig 1.3.33?
Regards,
Blair
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-02-25 21:57:11 CET