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

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

From: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 08:11:36 -0700

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 mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.