2009-05-30 14:20:12 Hyrum K. Wright napisał(a):
> 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 napisał(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
> 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.
Subversion 1.6.2 was released on 2009-05-11 11:55 UTC, so 30 days later
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
Received on 2009-05-30 17:07:51 CEST