2008/5/22 Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>:
> The dates I proposed initially were based upon the release process as
> defined in STATUS, nothing more. I was just trying to give people a heads
> up to avoid any surprises when I cut the final RC. I'm flexible, and as of
> right now I *am not* planning on cutting the RC this weekend.
FWIW, your own availability to do it not withstanding, I do think we
should try to reach consensus on one of the options soon and should
try to do something this weekend. All of the options involved making
something for next week. That said, if the weekend is spent clearing
STATUS or deciding what to backport then that is fine too. Let's just
keep moving in some direction.
> I think that a number of people were assuming that RC 5 would become 1.5.0.
> That's never been my understanding; I've been working under the assumption
> that RC 5 would allow people to discover problems and contribute
> conservative bugfixes, and that RC 6 would be rolled a week before 1.5.0,
> per HACKING. Because of our self-policing, we should be able to roll an RC
> 6 at any time after RC 5.
So can you just specify which of the 3 options you are personally in
favor of? It sounds like option #2, which is let's do an RC6 but
let's only include the conservative bugfixes.
> Theoretically, 1.5.x is only becoming more stable as we progress. I remain
> unconvinced that this is the case. I think a lot of people (myself
> included) have merged more than conservative bugfixes and showstopper
> problem fixes to 1.5.x since RC 5. I think we need to exercise a bit more
> restraint here, and Karl's review of stuff merged since RC 5 is a step in
> the right direction.
Other than some of the API changes, which are more about code
maintenance, I am not aware of anything that is a showstopper. There
are some non-trivial bug fixes that have been backported, but they are
also were not release blockers.
> If we do roll RC 6, and then give it a two-week "soak", per HACKING, it's
> really only a one-week soak, because of RC 7 coming a week before the end of
> the two weeks. RC 7 would then become the final. The alternative, IMO is
> to roll RC 6 early next week, and deem it the precursor to 1.5.0, but wait
> two weeks to find showstopper bugs. Anything besides a showstopper bugfix
> would be pushed to 1.5.1. RC 6 would then become 1.5.0 around June 9.
I do not believe we have to do an RC7. An RC7 would only be necessary
if there were some bugfixes made after RC6 that we felt HAD to go into
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-05-22 15:14:43 CEST