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

Re: Status of 1.6

From: Mark Phippard <mphippard_at_collab.net>
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 10:38:01 -0500

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Hi all. I hope everyone had a good holiday. We're really close to completing
> the items in TODO-1.6 in preparation for the 1.6.x branch. Without further ado,
> these are the pending blocker items, along with the nominally responsible
> individuals:
> * #3334: Tree conflicts "merry-go-round" about update updating the base.
> Julian Foad is working on this. Done for when victim is a file, still
> doing for when victim is a directory. [julianfoad]
> * r34977 added a cmdline prompt to a library function. This api should be
> updated to accept a prompt handler and svn should provide such a prompt
> handler. [stylesen]
> Senthil has posted a patch for the second item, but I'm not sure of the progress
> of issue #3334. Julian, what is the current status of this issue? Do you need
> help completing it? When do you estimate being finished?
> If the answers to the above questions are reasonable, we can plan on branching
> in the next few days, and rolling the first RC by week's end. Thanks to
> everyone who continues to improve 1.6.
> -Hyrum
> [ Note: I apologize if these emails come off sounding too much like they are
> coming from project management. That's *not* my intent, but after half-a-dozen
> false starts in the last two months, I'm starting to get a bit crabby. :) ]

Don't apologize, we need someone to keep the trains moving!

Stefan Sperling posted another item today that looked like a blocker.
He, or someone, ought to add it to the TODO.

What is the status of SQLITE documentation? I still wonder about what
sort of problems we are going to cause with our requirement of such a
recent version of the library. I do not see how people will be able
to build RPM's for RHEL or older versions of Debian. Could we not
solve this problem, and the documentation issue, if we simply
incorporated the amalgamated version into our build, rather than rely
on shared library?

Mark Phippard
Received on 2009-01-06 16:38:18 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.