On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 6:40 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> Maybe it's time to rethink the model. Maybe we should get 1.5 out the door,
> roll 1.6 with tree conflicts detection and Kamesh's merge algorithm
> improvements and whatever other mostly-done things can be finalized and
> delivered in under 6 months, and then seriously take on the challenge of
> Subversion 2.0.
While I'm behind doing a quick 1.6 follow-on to 1.5 if that's what's
needed, but I shudder at yet another drawn-out release cycle. If we
go down that 2.0 route, I'd want us to quickly churn out 2.x releases
rather then re-entering the never-never-land that 1.5's been in.
I do disagree with epg and mostly agree with C-Mike though on the
broader issue. A lot of the complaints that epg raised don't warrant
to me that we release 1.5 as a 'tech preview' but instead that we keep
improving what we have. I *hate* *hate* the idea of not doing more
releases more frequently and think we've shot ourselves in the foot
with that. A lot of the complaints that were raised could have been
resolved if we had gotten our code out quicker to test rather then
letting it sit in trunk for years waiting for anyone other than the
original contributors giving feedback to the changes. The best way to
get the code improved is to do releases and get feedback on it. We
have never said that our releases are perfect - hence I think
'technology preview' is more of the same ultra-conservatism and
paralysis that has struck us lately.
For the issues that epg raised that I personally contributed to, I'm
happy to fix bugs on 'em, but without any other user, as long as it
works for me, I'm not likely to tweak it. =) -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-02-28 18:02:54 CET