[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, 20 Jan 2009 10:55:17 -0600

Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Julian Foad
> <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 08:57 -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>> Hi all, just another mail to check up on the status of the 1.6.x blocking
>>> issues. TODO-1.6 hasn't changed that much over the last couple of weeks, but I
>>> think we've made some progress toward the issues presented. They are:
>>> * #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]
>>> See:
>>> <http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1019712>.
>>> * #3354: update fails when file with local mods is moved and modified.
>>> The bug has been fixed, but the regression test for the issue seems
>>> to have problems.
>>> * Review the new "svn_dirent/svn_uri" API and ensure we aren't putting
>>> functions into the public name space that we won't want to support.
>>> See
>>> <http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1010183>.
>>> I know that Julian continues to work on issue #3334, do we know what work is left?
>> I believe I've got it doing basically the right thing on the
>> issue-3334-dirs branch. I have some test failures that I'm working
>> through; some may be changed expectations and others may be bugs:
>> FAIL: update_tests.py 7: update that deletes modified files
>> FAIL: update_tests.py 47: tree conflicts on update 1.2
>> FAIL: update_tests.py 48: tree conflicts on update 2.1
>> FAIL: update_tests.py 49: tree conflicts on update 2.2
>> FAIL: update_tests.py 51: tree conflicts on update 3
>> FAIL: switch_tests.py 32: tree conflicts on switch 1.2
>> FAIL: switch_tests.py 33: tree conflicts on switch 2.1
>> FAIL: switch_tests.py 34: tree conflicts on switch 2.2
>> FAIL: switch_tests.py 35: tree conflicts on switch 3
>> FAIL: revert_tests.py 19: revert tree conflicts in updated files
>> FAIL: stat_tests.py 31: status with tree conflicts
> What do we see as the general release plan? I am assuming that once
> these issues are wrapped up, buildbot is all green etc., that we will
> make the branch and move directly to RC1?
> If these issues are wrapped up this week do we plan to do this next week?
> I just want to be able to prepare resources on my end. We (CollabNet)
> plan to make binaries available as we did for 1.5 to help get as many
> testers as possible.

That's my plan. The way I look at it, the time we've spent waiting for the
current issues to resolve has been well spent as a "presoak" period. I see no
reason to hold the RC very long after we branch.


Received on 2009-01-20 17:55:39 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.