Re: svn update --depth=empty WC corruption issue
Karl Fogel wrote:
> "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.
Sure, I'm up to it. I'll roll rc9 this evening, so make sure the
translations, doc fixes, etc. are all done by then.
Received on 2008-06-03 17:12:13 CEST
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev