[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: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 09:53:19 -0600

Mark Phippard wrote:
> 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?

The SQLite documentation task is begin tracked by issue #3352. Just like other
documentation issues (CHANGES, the release notes), we can work on the SQLite
documentation during the soak.

As far as requiring "such a recent version" of SQLite, we currently require
3.4.0 or above, which was released on June 18, 2007. I'm of the opinion that if
a user wants to install a new version of Subversion, they may have to install
newer versions of the dependencies. Hopefully packagers are sensitive to this
fact as well, and will provide ways to get those dependencies.

And one more thing for 1.6, while I'm thinking about it. We should probably do
an issue sweep and determine which issues marked 1.6 are needed before the
release, and which are just fanciful. Any volunteers?


Received on 2009-01-06 16:53:39 CET

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