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

Re: svn commit: r37902 - trunk

From: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org>
Date: Sat, 30 May 2009 07:20:12 -0500

On May 29, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:

> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org
> > wrote:
>> On May 29, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2009-05-29 23:54:58 Hyrum K. Wright napisaƂ(a):
>>>> There are a couple of fixes already merged to 1.6.x which fix bugs
>>>> which we've been hearing about a lot lately (I'm looking at you,
>>>> r37894). If nobody objects, I'd like to cut 1.6.3 early this
>>>> upcoming
>>>> Wednesday, in an effort to get these fixes out there quickly. I
>>>> realize this comes pretty quickly on the heals of 1.6.2, but I feel
>>>> the fixes are important enough to do a quick release.
>>>
>>> IMHO it would be better to release 1.6.3 30 days after the release
>>> of 1.6.2.
>>
>> Would you care to #define that magic number? :)
>
> Barring some kind of data loss bug, there is something to be said for
> just sticking to a rhythm. I agree that some of the fixes since 1.6.2
> are particularly high value, so I would not object to a release next
> week. That said, I also think it could wait another week or 2 as
> planned to see what other fixes get in and to allow for proper review
> of anything else.
>
> There was that thread on the problem with copy, as an example. Will
> it be fixed in the next week? I'd guess no, but maybe it is getting
> some attention now. Were a fix to come in say in a week it sure would
> be nice to get it in to 1.6.3 (as well as a 1.5.x release).
>
> Anyway, no objections from me, just saying that I also think there is
> merit in sticking with the "plan".

The "plan" has always been a bit loosely defined, but I've generally
been going with 6-8 week point releases. In this case, it seems like
lots of people have been hit by the "commit takes too much memory"
bug, for which we believe we have a fix already merged to 1.6.x.
That's the primary reason why I'd want to do a 1.6.3 next week, since
it's a real issue that has been hindering people's ability to use
Subversion.

That being said, I agree that there is a real cost to cutting a
release, and we should try to avoid too frequent releases. I was
really just wondering why rolling the tarball on June 5 would be to
much different (from Arfrever's perspective) than rolling it on June 3.

(One side node: I'm going to be afk, with intermittent 'net access
from June 6 - June 16, so if a release happens during that time, we'll
have to designate someone to do it.)

-Hyrum

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2357108
Received on 2009-05-30 14:20:48 CEST

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