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

Re: Subversion 1.5 Release decision?

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 14:11:13 -0400

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2008 at 2:10 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> Have we reached any consensus or made a decision on the release? I
>> think the conversation has stalled but maybe it has continued off
>> list. It seems like we have these options available:
>> 1) Release 1.5 the week of June 2 based on current RC5
>> 2) Release RC6 next week based on a new branch from RC5 + selected
>> safe fixes and API changes. GA to follow by a week.
> The more I think about it the more I prefer #2. I am not sure how we
> would do this technically. Create a 1.5.0-GA branch from the RC5 tag
> and then merge the select fixes we consider safe?
> I am going to do a closer review of what has been back ported since
> the RC5 change, but other than the API changes, I do not think any of
> them were critical for GA or show stoppers.

So here is a follow-up. I looked through all of the post-RC5 merges
and grouped them. I am attaching text files for each of the groups.
Here is a summary though. I see only two backports that arguably
could use some more review if we wanted to consider them conservative
enough for a one-week soak.

r31185 | hwright | 2008-05-14 23:59:12 EDT
Changed paths:
        M /branches/1.5.x/subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c
        M /branches/1.5.x/subversion/libsvn_client/mergeinfo.c
        M /branches/1.5.x/subversion/libsvn_client/mergeinfo.h
        M /branches/1.5.x/subversion/tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py

Merge r30949, r30962 from trunk:

 * r30949, r30962
   Fix issue #3188. Mergeinfo on switched targets/subtrees should elide
   to repos.
     +1: pburba, markphip, cmpilato

r31218 | cmpilato | 2008-05-15 15:58:42 EDT
Changed paths:
        M /branches/1.5.x/subversion/libsvn_wc/merge.c
        M /branches/1.5.x/subversion/tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py

Merge from trunk this change group:

 * (r31159, r31179) or r31193 from 1.5.x-r31159-r31179 branch.
   Fix "file not found" error when a merge target is a broken symbolic link.
     r31179 just makes sure the new test is skipped on Windows.
     r31193 from 1.5.x-r31159-r31179 branch has r31159 and r31179
     merged to it with a conflict resolution.
     +1: kfogel(r31159, r31179), kameshj, cmpilato (r31159, r31179)

I do not think either of these need to go into 1.5.0.

I should point out that there is another one of these changes in
STATUS. I think we could ship 1.5.0 without this fix, but it does fix
a bug we have encountered ourselves.

 * r31059, 31060, 31061, 31075, 31151
   Fix issue #3157, Merging a change from a path's natural history
   creates self-referential mergeinfo

Of the fixes that I do not think need review, the ones I have
classified as API changes we would probably want to get into 1.5.0.
And then there is also the svnmerge.py improvements that I think ought
to go into 1.5.0. That fix is in the "conservative fixes" file.

Given this, I think we should try to get some additional review for
the two revisions I have flagged, be conservative about what ELSE we
backport. And then make RC6 from the current branch + 1-week soak for
final release. We could also potentially try to back out the two
changes that need review if we do not feel they have received it.

Looking at those fixes they both look like edge cases so I wonder how
much potential they have to cause unrelated regressions anyway.

Mark Phippard

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 20:11:24 CEST

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.