On Thu, 7 Aug 2008, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 7, 2008 at 8:08 PM, Lieven Govaerts <svnlgo_at_mobsol.be> wrote:
>> There's always a customer somewhere that wants a certain feature earlier,
>> that's ok. We even have some committers now that want to support that, even
>> better. Give them a branch!
>
> My concern is that CollabNet folks have said that they are
> contemplating switching their official 1.5 binaries to include these
> features and make them available to the world. (Regardless of
> whatever we do, CollabNet *will* make these binaries available to
> their paying customers in some fashion.)
>
> So, instead of creating confusion by having feature disparity between
> in-the-wild 1.5.x releases, I'd prefer that we just issue a 1.6
> release that has those same features to minimize confusion. I dislike
> folks using our name and adding features that we don't have in the
> same release and still calling it "Subversion". -- justin
+1
And STATUS already contains a few things for the next micro release.
Who cares if it's called 1.5.2 or 1.6.0?
> In the meantime, we can continue working on a comprehensive set of
> features worthy of the term 'release' for the end of this year.
What is a 'worthy feature' for release?
How many lines of code are needed?
For me the '-c' option alone would have been enough for a release, though
it was just a few lines of code. The important thing is the benefit for us
users. I guess most other users also don't care how much code churn is
done.
I propose that 3 or 4 month after a release you look at the new features
and if there's something which makes life easier release it.
Just my 2 cents
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-08-08 02:03:53 CEST