Re: svn update --depth=empty WC corruption issue

"Mark Phippard" <markphip_at_gmail.com> writes:
> I could still go either way on this one and certainly do not object if
> we want to do an RC9. I'd like to see us reach a decision though as
> we could have done it last week.

According to hacking.html, we can roll in a critical bug fix during the
last week of soak and not restart the soak (as long as we give that
bugfix a minimum of one week of soak).

This seems reasonable to me. I'd forgotten it, though, and one of the
reasons I'd been against an RC9 was because I'd thought that we'd have
to do a full four-week soak (not that I really felt such a long soak was
necessary, but I also didn't want to compromise a procedure we'd already
agreed on).

Given that a one-week soak is sufficient (both procedurally and
common-sensically), +1 on an RC9 (with r31516 and r31485) if Hyrum is up
to it.

-Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-06-03 16:45:06 CEST