On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 12:03 -0500, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> There's been a bit of discussion in response to my mail of last week about
>> branching 1.6 on Wednesday (see
>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0818.shtml). However, I haven't heard
>> any screaming complaints or needs to push the date back, so I'm still planning
>> on branching 1.6 on Nov. 5, 1700 UTC.
>>
>> As I mentioned earlier, if people feel they need another week or so be get stuff
>> in for 1.6, I don't think that's too much of a problem, but please make it known
>> soon!
>
> I've just added "svn resolved must act on a victim path, not a parent
> path" to the TODO-1.6 file. The problem Mark noticed (which reminded us
> of that) is another one and I would expect more.
>
> We're still working on tree conflicts and I'm not confident that it's
> just one or two things left to do - we don't have a clear list of what's
> still needed.
>
> How can we best put some tight bounds on what's needed? Here's one idea:
> write out one use case from start to finish, and work it through with
> the present code, looking for problems where documenting a work-around
> is the most expedient way, and for where code fixes are essential. I'll
> start that.
I think manually running through the use cases would help. I was
seeing some bizarre working copy stuff yesterday but given that tree
conflicts were essentially making the WC invalid, it is hard to know
how much it was all caused by that one problem.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-10-30 19:59:43 CET