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

RE: 1.7.0-beta1 up for testing / signing

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 11:57:59 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: zondag 17 juli 2011 12:14
> To: Hyrum K Wright; dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 1.7.0-beta1 up for testing / signing
>
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 06:04, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 05:20:25AM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> >> There have been quite a few changes merged into the 1.7.x branch. How
> >> about nuking this tarball, and rolling a new one? We *know* this
> >> tarball isn't what we'd like to deliver to users, so why should we
> >> bother posting it?
> >
> > The point of pre-releases is to find regressions we don't know about.
> > These could lurk in beta1 just as well as current 1.7.x.
> >
> > Stuff we have merged into 1.7.x can be listed as known problems
> > for beta1 which will be fixed in beta2.
>
> Sure, but we haven't even released beta1 yet. I'm saying that we nuke
> it as "already not what we want to deliver".
>
> At the "beta" point, it seems that we'd really like to be much closer
> to reality. Alphas are pretty throw-away, but betas... we want to be
> close. And we already know that this unreleased beta1 doesn't match
> what we want to release.

+1

And while we are at it, maybe we shouldn't use the 24 hour delay merging
things back to 1.7 in this phase.
Merging approved patches back directly improves the test coverage. Even if
it is only because the buildbots will directly start building 1.7.x.

In that case I would suggest that we DO keep the approved+already merged
patches in STATUS for some time for better reviews.

We can always roll back vetoed patches before the next tag.

        Bert
Received on 2011-07-18 11:58:45 CEST

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