On Tue, Mar 10, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> We're getting close to 1.6.0-final. We've had very little word about
> showstopper bugs in this release, and it looks like we're going to be
> able to proceed with a release next month. Here's the current timeline:
>
> Mar. 16 @ 1200 UTC - Have finalized CHANGES file merged to trunk
> Mar. 16 @ 1800 UTC - Roll 1.6.0-rc4, solicit signature collection
> Mar. 17 (est.) - Publish 1.6.0-rc4 release
> Mar. 18 @ 2200 UTC - Roll 1.6.0 final from same rev as 1.6.0-rc4
> Mar. 20 @ 1500 UTC - Publish 1.6.0 release
>
> Glancing over 1.6.x STATUS, there is one issue which concerns me a
> little:
>
> * ^/branches/1.6.x-UNC-paths
> Resolves the regression on 1.6.X that disabled UNC path support on
> Windows.
> (All \\server\share format paths were canonicalized to /local/dir
> format).
> Justification:
> A lot of Windows users use UNC paths in corporate environment.
> While
> not fully supported until issue #2028 and #2556 are resolved,
> this is a
> serious regression against older versions.
> Notes:
> Most of the changes in this branch are tests on the behavior of
> path
> functions. The real changes are in path.c and reroute unc paths to
> svn_dirent_*() functions.
> The tests are there to make sure we don't regress again on the
> 1.6.x
> branch and to allow future merges in this part of the code.
> Votes:
> +1: rhuijben, gstein
>
> This doesn't effect me directly, but it I can see how this could
> impact a number of our users. If possible, I'd like to see this
> reviewed so it can get into the final 1.6.0 tarball.
If we can include this fix and keep to the proposed schedule, +1.
Otherwise, I think it can wait to 1.6.1 which I understand we are
planning for just a couple weeks later.
I tested this problem and it at least fails in a "good way". Meaning
SVN just does not see the path as a WC. It does not corrupt anything
etc. A user can downgrade to 1.5.x, wait for 1.6.1 or map a drive to
the path. Those all seem like reasonable workarounds.
There was a lot of pent up demand for merge tracking and 1.5, and yet
it seemed like months before users really started using it and asking
merge questions. I do not see any reason to delay 1.6.0 for this bug
when we can have a 1.6.1 release out shortly thereafter. AnkhSVN,
TortoiseSVN etc. all provide their own builds so could patch in the
fix if they are concerned about their users running into it.
NOTE: I am not against including the fix in 1.6.0 in general. Only if
it requires a re-soak.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1304369
Received on 2009-03-10 19:53:03 CET