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

Re: What's left TODO for 1.6.x?

From: Neels Janosch Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 00:58:24 +0100

Neels Janosch Hofmeyr wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 4:10 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
>> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>> This mail was going to be about a new branch date for 1.6.x, but I noticed that
>>> there are still a few items labeled "Blocker" in TODO-1.6. They are reproduced
>>> below:
>>> * Other items
>>> - implement or back out svn_wc_queue_committed2()
>>> - back out svn_wc__adm_{save,get}_pristine_path, since gstein has
>>> found another way to access the necessary data. (leave the new
>>> shared state stuff in there, however)
>>> * Actually document how to build with SQLite (ie, make the part in
>>> INSTALL not blank, explain how to build against a newer version
>>> of SQLite than what may be installed in your system, figure out
>>> if the text in sqlite.m4 about being able to use a sqlite/
>>> subdirectory is in any way true, etc etc)
>>> Are there any volunteers to tackle these above issues? They don't look too
>>> difficult, but I'm personally not very familiar with any of them.
>>> If these issues can be reasonably accomplished in the next week, is there any
>>> reason not to branch 1.6.x on Dec. 12?
>> So is tree conflicts ready now or have they just not declared stuff in TO-DO?
> We have removed our TODO items for 1.6 because we resolved them. So, yes,
> we're ready.
> One thing remains, which is entirely up to gstein at the moment. He's
> pointed out that our storing of tree-conflicts info using yet another new
> data structuring protocol is undesirable, to the point that he thinks it's a
> 1.6 blocker. After we couldn't be bothered to do something about it, Greg
> said he'd fix it himself. Sounds like he's still busy with it.
> I also see we've got a branch floating that I thought had been merged
> already (merge-skips-obstructions). I'll have a look. It's not a blocker
> anyway, AFAIK.

The branch *has* been merged in r34542. So that's good.


Received on 2008-12-08 10:41:38 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.