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

Re: Lose users? -- was: Re: Update on my previous tree conflict scenario

From: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2008 09:51:40 -0600

Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 8:00 PM, Neels J. Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de> wrote:
>> Greg Stein wrote:
>>> Personally, I would give the tree conflict folks until first/second
>>> week of January (i.e. just post-break) to wrap their work. And by
>>> "wrap", I mean finish or cut. I think it is TOTALLY acceptable for us
>>> to ship 1.6 in a Jan/Feb timeframe, so I'm more than willing to give
>>> them the *proper* time to get the work done and make it solid. I fear
>>> that putting this feature "under the gun" will be a bad outcome for
>>> everybody. It also seems to be reasonable/close enough that we can
>>> take a month or two to get it wrapped (or cut, worst case).
>> When you say EOY, then that's a whole new story. I was expecting the
>> branching to take place tomorrow-ish, us handing in patches onto the branch
>> and having to release before christmas. If we can carry on developing "on
>> trunk" until christmas, I think that we'll have sufficient tree-conflicts
>> usability for a release. Tree-conflicts folks, do you agree?
> Note that that is only my opinion. You've gotta convince others to go
> that long :-)
> Further, I'm good with that only when knowing "what is left? how do we
> cut if necessary?" types of questions. In other words, it isn't an
> open-ended ticket to churn :-) Some kind of feature description of
> what is in/out is still needed -- do you guys really have a handle on
> this? Or are we going to continue to bumble along until one day it is
> called "done".

I completely agree here. The mistake with 1.5 wasn't that it included merge
tracking or that merge tracking was hard; the mistake was an unclear notion of
the scope of the problem and the complexity of the solution, in spite of having
some very bright people working on it.

Producing some kind of definition of the remaining tree conflicts work for 1.6
will help the community understand what's left to do, and more importantly help
the tree-conflicts folks understand what's left. It may even get a few more
people involved if there are well-scoped bite-sized tasks available.

Neels, Stefan, Julian, et al: I await your list of what's left. :)

> I don't really care about the "hard" December date. A month or two is
> fine. We want good, and we want stable. Hard rules tend to work
> against those goals.

As RM, I just oversee the release process, but I let the community decide what
that process is and when it should be kicked off. That said, as a developer,
I'm happy to let the branch date slide *a little* if it facilitates more
stability. However, we need to be very careful, because many "a little"s adds
up to "a lot".


Received on 2008-11-17 16:51:52 CET

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.