Re: svn commit: r32042 - branches/1.5.x

Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> arfrever_at_tigris.org wrote:
>> Author: arfrever
>> Date: Tue Jul 8 14:57:35 2008
>> New Revision: 32042
>>
>> Log:
>> * STATUS: Nominate r32017, r32029 and vote for r31964.
>>
>> Modified:
>> branches/1.5.x/STATUS
>>
>> Modified: branches/1.5.x/STATUS
>> URL:
>> http://svn.collab.net/viewvc/svn/branches/1.5.x/STATUS?pathrev=32042&r1=32041&r2=32042
>>
>> ==============================================================================
>>
>> --- branches/1.5.x/STATUS Tue Jul 8 14:45:29 2008 (r32041)
>> +++ branches/1.5.x/STATUS Tue Jul 8 14:57:35 2008 (r32042)
>> @@ -127,5 +126,10 @@ Candidate changes for 1.5.1:
>> Votes:
>> +1: dlr
>>
>> + * r32017, r32029
>> + Support Berkeley DB 4.7.
>> + Votes:
>> + +1: arfrever
>> +
>> Approved changes:
>> =================
>>
>
> Is this a bugfix or a feature? I know that we occasionally bump
> accepted patch releases of our various dependencies in patch releases of
> our own, but I'm a little wary about this one. I doubt many people have
> an immediate need for 4.7 support, anyway. I haven't reviewed the
> changes in question, though, and they may prove to be less intrusive
> than I think.

The changes aren't so intrusive really. As for fix vs. feature, Berkeley DB
4.7 itself provides a number of fixes over its previous version, including a
bit of compile-time-enable-able logic aimed at high-volume consumers. Is
this alone a reason to make *our* bugfix release build against it? I dunno.
  And while CollabNet wants this patch, we can certainly apply it to our
codebase ourselves. So, all that really to say, "whatever the community
decides to do is cool with me."

-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org