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

Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:26:34 -0400

"C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato_at_collab.net> writes:
> Nah, the book claims to document a particular pegged release of
> Subversion. If the printed work goes stale once 1.6 is released
> ... well, that's just the way those things go. We still have the
> online version which can be kept as up-to-date as possible.

Is there currently reasonably clear notice in the book about elements of
merge-tracking that a) some users might expect, but b) are not yet
there, and c) are likely to be there in the future? That's mainly what
I'm worried about. I haven't had a chance to look yet, though.

I understand about what promises the book makes and doesn't make. But
my point isn't about fulfilling the literal terms of a contract with
readers, it's about what's best for Subversion. This will be the first
new print edition since 1.0; it's going to be widely read, and how it
communicates merge tracking will be very influential, I think.

> Don't get me wrong -- I'd *love* the help in ensuring that Subversion
> 1.5.0 is properly documented in the book text, *especially* since Ben,
> Fitz and I are dancing with O'Reilly right now, trying to release a
> printed document as close to the 1.5.0 release date as possible. But
> that added requirement would be new to this release, and is not (in my
> opinion) something that we-the-Subversion-devs should necessarily
> assume as a blocker of this release.

Hmmm. If we edit this while Subversion 1.5 is in beta, does that change
the dance with O'Reilly?

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-03-12 19:26:48 CET

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