Stephen Butler wrote:
> Quoting "Hyrum K. Wright" <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>:
>> After talking with Karl in IRC just now, my view is kind of changing:
>> Let's yank the APIs now, branch 1.6.x at the end of the week,
>> stabilize, and
>> release 1.6 with the currently implemented features.
>> I think the trepidation to yank the tree conflicts APIs for 1.6 comes
>> from the
>> innate emotional attachment developers tend to have to their own code
>> and a
>> desire to see it ship.
> Guilty as charged, your honor. ;-) I also tend to focus too closely
> on short term goals and the next patches, and lose perspective on the
> medium-term issues that really block this feature from release.
Completely natural tendency. ("I want *my* code to ship, so if 1.6 ships sooner
if we remove tree conflicts, let's do that!") I'm just trying to make sure I've
got a complete idea of where we stand.
> The code for tree conflict detection, skipping, and status-reporting
> has matured a lot in the last few weeks. But I'm afraid our design
> for resolve and revert is still rather sketchy. We hadn't realized
> how tricky it is to resolve tree conflicts. And helping the user
> by offering "mine-full", "theirs-full", etc. will take APIs and
> infrastructure that are difficult to shoehorn into the current
> piecemeal-admin-area architecture.
So, would the resolving bits need to wait until WC-NG? It sounds like not being
able to revert may be a bit of problem, but maybe I just don't understand the
problem in it's entirety.
> Leaving users to detect tree conflicts on their own isn't an ideal
> solution, either, but at least we won't be in trouble for blocking
> their commits!
> Tree conflict fans, do you agree?
>> As a thought experiment, how difficult would it be to release 1.6
>> without tree
> TODO: Take out TC code and tests, restore old error messages
> (that we replaced with TCs), and tweak old tests that create
> TCs inadvertently.
> A few hours, I guess. I think we could safely plan to branch
> Wednesday evening.
Whoa, pard'ner! My comments were a bit drastic, too be sure, so I hope you're
not now frantically working to pull every shred of tree conflicts from 1.6. I'm
just curious as to what the effort would be.
And note that when I say "pull tree conflicts" I really mean "remove the bits
which aren't finished and which couldn't ship Real Soon Now."
Received on 2008-11-18 03:17:49 CET