[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: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 20:55:37 +0000

On Tue, 2009-01-27 at 10:39 -0500, Mark Phippard wrote:
> Any new updated on this? What can we do to get TODO cleaned up and
> cut this release? For those of you that are "signed up" for these
> items is there anything that can be done to help? Review a branch,
> write a test etc.?
>
> Here is the current list, it is pretty much the same list we've had
> for 3-4 weeks:
>
> Blocker:
>
> * #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>.

I'm struggling with this. Help would be appreciated. Please see the
separate email I'm sending, subject "Help on 1.6-blocker #3334 - tree
conflicts in update".

> * 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 don't think anybody's volunteered. We might choose to ship the new API
as it is, and then fix it in subsequent releases in any ways that may be
found necessary. We can always deprecate parts if necessary.

> * #3209: Tests XFAIL due to changed tree-conflicts behaviour
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2009-01/0538.shtml summarizes the tests
> that are failing because of real differences in pre-TC vs. post-TC
> functionality.

Paul did great work on identifying what remains to be done, explained in
that linked email.

> * Fix failing JavaHL test. The root cause is a change made in r35199 as part
> of the work for issue #3356.
>
> Optional:
>
> * Tree conflicts - non-essential issues:
>
> - #3329: Update/switch fails if the target itself is a tree conflict victim.
> Should print a 'Skipped' message instead. Update of an item that is
> inside a tree conflict, and that no longer exists in the repo, does
> nothing. Should print a 'Skipped' message instead.

I think we could easily agree to ship without fixing that one.

- Julian

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1064391
Received on 2009-01-28 21:55:57 CET

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