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

Re: [PROPOSAL] Create the 1.7.x branch. Like, now.

From: Hyrum K Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 11:22:41 -0500

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 9:32 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
>> The issue tracker currently has *no* non-Serf-related blocker issues open.
>> Per prior agreement, this effectively means that there are no known
>> blockers, as we have a contingency plan for Serf already (un-default it).  I
>> realize that we'd like to see the tracker sit quiet (blocker-wise) for a
>> week or so before saying "ship the RC", but I think we need to face some
>> realities:
>>  - blocker-class bugs can -- and will -- crop up after we branch.
>>  - blocker-class bugs can -- and will -- crop up after we release,
>>    for that matter!
>>  - there seems to be more dev activity on 1.8-aimed feature branches
>>    than on the trunk.  Our "merge pain" threshold has shifted.
>> So, with all of this in mind, I propose that we immediately branch 1.7.x and
>> release beta-1.  We than allow an extra week before we fire off RC1 -- we
>> need to ensure that CHANGES and any other release administrivia get wrapped
>> up anyway.
>> What to do about Serf?  I'd like to think that Greg could wrap up his work
>> on the single remaining blocking issue in the next week or so.  I've already
>> heard (via Hyrum) that he's essentially finished with the work, and just
>> testing his changes at this point.   I do not know, though, what the status
>> of the Serf 1.0 release is, which I *thought* was also a pre-requisite for
>> making available many of the recent blocker-related fixes.  (Greg?)
>> Anyway, I'm *not* proposing that we immediately revert to Neon as the
>> default after branching.  That week of beta gives Greg (or whoever) one last
>> chance to save the day for Serf.  But I strongly feel that we as a community
>> need to declare an RC1 date and stick with it in the absence of absolutely
>> critical failures in Subversion.  The fuzzy release date thing is great for
>> the first, oh, two years of a release.  But let's get on with it, already.
>> So, to clarify, I'm proposing the following:
>>  * Branch 1.7.x now.
>>  * Release beta-1 immediately after branching.
>>  * Make a go/no-go call on Serf 7 days from now.
>>  * Release rc-1 after making (and acting on, if necessary) the Serf
>>    go/no-go call.
>> What say we?
> I agree with the above.
> One question that I have is regarding housekeeping.  Do we have any
> actions which should be done on trunk (file renames, whitespace
> cleaning, mergeinfo pruning, etc), which will improve our experience
> when merging to the branch?

Because I'm a nice guy (and to allow people time to comment), I'll
wait until tomorrow morning to create the branch, but plan on it then.

Received on 2011-07-12 18:23:16 CEST

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