[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: Paul Burba <ptburba_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 13:14:03 -0400

On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Hyrum K Wright <hyrum_at_hyrumwright.org> wrote:
> 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.

+1 on branching tomorrow. Undecided on whether Hyrum is a nice guy :-P
Received on 2011-07-12 19:14:37 CEST

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