On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 11:57 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> [second verse, same as the first...]
>
> Alright folks, we're branching 1.6.x this week. Here's the schedule of events:
>
> Nov. 12, ~1700 UTC: Create 1.6.x branch from current trunk.
> Nov. 12, sometime in the evening: Roll 1.6.0-pre1 and get some sigs.
> Nov. 13: release 1.6.0-pre1
>
> I know that we've still got some stuff in the TODO file, but it feels like it
> isn't anything which can't happen on the branch (glasser, I haven't forgotten
> about the FSFS stuff. :) ) Also, trunk is generally looking more stable now,
> and by branching, we can work on stabilizing the branch independent of any
> destabilizations going on in trunk.
>
> I propose that the -preN releases don't require the full signature complement,
> and that we release them *even with known* issues, while enumerating those
> issues as part of the release. I also propose that we use the looser voting
> guidelines while still doing -preN releases to aid code mobility into the branch
> (while still getting a second set of eyes on it). These changes mirror what we
> did early in the 1.5.x release cycle.
>
> Objections?
So you would put out these pre1 etc. releases even when we know the
tests are failing? Who would sign them? Also, who do we expect to
consume these tarballs?
I'd like to see out test suite pass, including the bindings before we
release anything. I kind of do not think we should branch before then
either, but that is more open for debate.
I ran all the tests this weekend and the Perl and Ruby bindings are
both broken. Other than that, the other test failures are "known" and
I've seen discussion about them.
--
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 2008-11-10 19:05:57 CET