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

RE: Third (and probably last) alpha coming later this week

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 20:46:34 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 5 juli 2011 20:15
> To: Mark Phippard
> Cc: Hyrum K Wright; dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Third (and probably last) alpha coming later this week
>
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 09:44, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 8:51 AM, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >>> We want to ship the best product possible. This mailing list is
defined to
> >>> be our decision-making focus. It seems incorrect to disregard a
reported
> >>> problem simply because (for whatever reason) an issue is not in the
> tracker.
> >>
> >> I don't claim that we should disregard the problem.  I *do* claim that
> >> we should more widely publicize blocking issues so that everybody can
> >> be aware of them.
>
> Done. It was posted to this list.
>
> >> The greater point was that this seems to be something that various
> >> people have kicking around in their heads.  We agreed in Berlin (and
> >> then discussed on this list) to use the issue tracker to record
> >> blocking issues.  I really don't want to be in the position of rolling
> >> a possible release candidate, only to find out we're got all these
> >> hidden issues that aren't being tracked in the agreed-upon public
> >> manner.
>
> Certainly, but you're not the only one to decide what will be a
> release candidate. As we've seen in this thread, hidden issues will be
> raised.
>
> Is it as efficient as it could be? No. But it *works*.
>
> > I am with Hyrum on this one.  If there are blockers people need to
> > create issues for them or at least formally raise them on dev@ so that
> > someone else can create an issue.  We should not be waiting for Hyrum
> > to announce the plans to make a release to suddenly reveal there are
> > blockers.
>
> It happens. So we deal with it and move on. This issue *has been*
> formally raised here on dev@, in this very thread. Some people just
> don't like to take time away from their coding to file an issue. I
> don't like to do it, and I suspect the same for Ivan. That is just the
> way people work.
>
> An issue has been filed now, for all the issue-oriented people. Done.
> Process works.
>
> My issue was with Hyrum's statement:
>
> "Not that I can see. As per our project-wide consensus regarding
> branching and releasing and release candidates and such, nothing in
> the issue tracker means that there isn't a blocking issue."
>
> To me, that reads as a casual disregard to Bert requesting that we do
> NOT roll a release candidate until the issue is fixed.

Note that I now enabled my fix in r1143089, which removes/resolves my main
concern on why we shouldn't release a new alpha 'now'.

I would like to see the deltas working though... But I don't understand
Ivan's concern/alternate solution.
(I just hope he is not working on a new crawl that gets the same information
from the WC again in additional db queries, as what we started the update
request with and now used by my patch)

        Bert
Received on 2011-07-05 20:48:21 CEST

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