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

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 14:17:09 -0400

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:19, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> 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

Thanks, Mike.

> "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?

Don't know the status on this, but I'd suggest that we try to defer
any reworking to post-1.7 (unless we must to fix regressions or bugs).

> "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.

I would have said "leave it in there", but Julian accepted Noorul's
patch... so I'm guessing he may have other ideas for when we return to
this, rather than leaving that code still in there.

> "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?

Nothing that I'm aware of. Just a normal level of bug fixes. There is
a suggestion later-thread around ra_serf, which I'll address there.

> "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?

Leave them, I say. There is more on this later-thread, and I'll
address it there.

They might not be ideal, but they are *private*, so we can revamp them
and fix them and make them our bitch in the future. I see no problem
shipping them in 1.7 as-is.


Received on 2011-04-13 20:17:40 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.