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

1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

From: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 11:19:48 -0400

I'm looking at a number of things right now, trying to get a handle on
exactly where 1.7 is in its slow trek towards completion. Obviously, we
have the issue tracker and its issues as one guidepost, but I'm also looking
at some of the other meta-issues we've chosen to track on our roadmap page
-- the stuff that's a bit more publicly visible -- which are not yet marked
as "Completed":

"WC-NG": Well... duh.

"Externals": This one concerns me. The referenced issue (#3818) implies
that we plan to completely rework our storage and handling of externals in
the 1.7 timeframe. Further, there are references to regressions against
1.6.x, which would seem at first glance to prevent us from deferring until a
future date. Can someone speak with confidence and knowledge about all of this?

"Remove obliterate code": I think the obliterate code is all tucked away in
private functions and such at this point. Is that as far as we plan to take
this in 1.7? If not, the purge of this stuff would be some pretty
low-hanging fruit for a would-be contributor.

"Review of performance branch": I get the sense from the list traffic that
we've kinda pulled what we want from this branch into trunk for now. Can
someone confirm?

"libsvn_ra_serf stabilization": Ivan and others have made progress in this
space, and AFAIK the Serf project has made the "new public release of serf
which contains the fix for the massive SSL memory leak" that we call for.
What's left?

"Test Review" / "API Review": Good stuff. This needs to happen. *waves hands*

"Remove temp APIs": I would put this at "nice to have". These APIs are
private, so what's the penalty if they wind up in the release?

"Issue triage": This has been happening along the way, at different rates
and by several folks. I *think* our 1.7.0 milestone is pretty tight at this
point, in terms of not carrying non-blockers. There may be still more that
could be deferred, but it's pretty tight.

"API performance analysis": We're doing some amount of this right now,
though more at the operational level than at the API level. This is where I
see value in hearing from our third-party API consumers/friends. We sorta
put Stefan King on hold for a while while we were dinking around at higher
levels in WC-NG. Would others agree that at this point, we're a bit more
free to start soliciting (and responding to) performance evaluations from
the likes of TortoiseSVN, AnkhSVN, subclipse, etc.?

C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand

Received on 2011-04-07 17:20:23 CEST

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.