On Wed, Nov 4, 2009 at 12:45, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2009, at 8:48 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
>
>> kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com wrote:
>>> I'd like to be a little selfish and wonder if it would be useful to
>>> release a
>>> 1.6.7 version faster than normal. (Especially since the release
>>> schedule
>>> may be affected by the amount of holiday time near the end of the
>>> year.)
>>>
>>> We are really getting hurt by the external problems that were fixed
>>> in r40152
>>> and merged into 1.6.x in r40219. Without this change we can't move
>>> a large
>>> number of our users from 1.5, and I would rather not be forced to
>>> compile
>>> custom patched versions for all the clients we use.
>>> (command line x 4 platforms, TortoiseSVN, Subclipse)
>>>
>>> Looking at STATUS, there are some other things already nominated
>>> (but need
>>> votes!!!) that also seem useful:
>>>
>>> * Fix for #3432
>>> * Win 7 exception handler support
>>> * Fix for #3489
>>> * Win32 performance improvements
>>> * future-proof patch
>>> * Fix for #3519
>>
>> For those who don't have a numerically-keyed hash of issues in their
>> brain:
>>
>> * Fix for #3432:
>> "Merge can record mergeinfo from natural history gaps"
>>
>> * Fix for #3489:
>> "Filenames with @ cannot be committed to the repository unless an @
>> is
>> added at the end."
>>
>> * future-proof patch
>> "Make 1.6.7 (and subsequent Subversion releases) recognize Subversion
>> 1.7+ working copies."
>>
>> * Fix for #3519:
>> "ra_serf using Label header unsupported by mod_dav_svn"
>>
>>
>>> I don't see it nominated, but the svn+ssh changes for windows may
>>> also
>>> fix some server resource problems others were seeing (We don't use
>>> svn+ssh,
>>> so I can't comment.)
>>>
>>> Is it too soon to be talking about this?
>>
>> +1 to the general notion of getting a 1.6.7 release out as soon as we
>> have some useful fixes in it.
>
> I've not yet looked at the the stuff that's currently been merged for
> 1.6.7, but there are several items in STATUS that are worth a
> release. I'm hesitant to do one *too* quickly (<4 weeks), but I'm
> happy to cut a release in the next few weeks if the demand is there,
> and it sounds like it is.
>
> As usual, the roadblock for getting stuff into the release is the
> review needed in STATUS. Please take some time to take a look.
In the Apache Incubator, there has been a request for us to produce a
release. I'm going to point them at the 1.6.7 release process, so I'd
like to request that it starts in (say) a couple weeks.
Cheers,
-g
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2415010
Received on 2009-11-06 08:41:24 CET