Re: working copy format bump on trunk this week?

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 06:36:04AM -0700, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> On 09/19/2012 02:33 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> > No responses so far. Does that mean there are no objections?
>>
>> The US/Europe CollabNet committers are all traveling this week for meetings,
>> so expect a slower response rate from us.
>
> Fine. BTW, I just talked to Bert on IRC, he's fine with me bumping
> the format as proposed, tonight CEST.
>
>> Paul's 'inheritable-props' branch work expects to make changes in format 30,
>> too, and that work has not (as far as I know) been merged to trunk. I think
>> it would be a shame to "go live" with format 30 today and then force Paul to
>> introduce a format 31 when he later merges his branch (which is, IMO, almost
>> ready for reintegration).
>
> I tried to address this point in my original mail, but allow me
> to elaborate:
>
> I know Paul has already bumped to 30 on his branch.
> This now means that either everyone else is blocked from bumping
> and has to wait, or that Paul will have to perform another bump
> after merging from trunk (and perhaps deal with the fallout of having
> working copies labeled '30' that now aren't the official trunk '30').
>
> If Paul is travelling this week and thus won't get to integrating
> his branch this week, then why should I have to wait in order to
> start comitting code on trunk that is based on Bert's new conflict
> storage? :) Cause right now I'm already hacking in a local working
> copy with a patched client that is already over the bump (with a
> format 30 that's different to Paul's!

Don't let my branch stop you from bumping Stefan, have at it. This is
great IMHO, it may make people more appreciative of the auto upgrade
issues.

 -- I guess that's collective
> poor planning on our part...)

-- 
Paul T. Burba
CollabNet, Inc. -- www.collab.net -- Enterprise Cloud Development
Skype: ptburba
> I could of course go on a branch, too, and perform a local bump there.
> However that doesn't solve the problem that we'll have to bump anyway
> at some point, and that we'll have to agree on the feature set of
> format 30. And I might not have much time for this next week.
>
> It would of course be best to integrate this all in one go.
> However, I don't think we should be afraid of format bumps to the
> point where people are waiting for each other for several days
> to make progress.
>
> I don't want to force this down anyone's throat though. I can deal
> with this locally as well, and wait for Paul's changes to be merged
> to trunk. However, if Paul's merge is to be a clean one, then *his*
> format 30 will be used, and I'll have to make my changes in 31.
>
>> Oh.  I also still abhor the fact that we auto-upgrade working copies.  But I
>> suppose that's a different rant for a different thread/sympathic_audience.
>
> Agreed and agreed. It also makes development harder in situations
> like these, since it forces people with different format '30' working
> copies to remember which client they used on it... :(