Re: "Subversion 1.5, Technology Preview"
From: Johnathan Gifford <jgifford_at_wernervas.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2008 15:37:11 -0600
>>> On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 2:52 PM, in message <8763w8by7m.fsf_at_red-bean.com>,
The crux of the problem is that 1.5 was rigidly stated include Merge Tracking. This might have been stated a long time ago, maybe around 1.1 in time. However, 1.2 came out followed by 1.3 then quickly by 1.4.
I distinctly remember a year ago Karl asking the community if we could wait 6 months for merge tracking. Well six turn into 9 with a missed 1.5 branch date last October. Then things were further delayed and here we are one year later with a target release for 1.5 in three months (15 months total?). An earlier release could have happened with a number of features (without merge-tracking) that could have easily been a 1.5, but 1.5 must contain merge tracking.
Maybe merge-tracking should have been slated as a 2.0.0 version and the current 2.0.0 spec version slated as 3.0.0. After all, it is a lot easier to release smaller enhancements as a major dot release. Or Merge tracking should have had a release year pinned to it rather than a version number? I think 1.5 came around quicker than many of us expected. And because it did come rather quickly, that statement of 1.5 must contain merge-tracking is causing some fuss now.
Maybe a lesson learned or the questioned that should be asked next time is whether major dot release should have a firmly stated set of features if that dot release is not the next major dot release?
Johnathan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.
This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.