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

1.8 Progress

From: Ben Reser <ben_at_reser.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2012 11:42:35 -0700

Looking at our roadmap we have the following things still in progress:

1) local moves/renames. Based on the conversation I had on IRC this seems
to be not done yet due to issues found in the original plan. stsp says
that if it can't be done before we want to otherwise release 1.8 he'd like
to pull the move code entirely. So the question here is do we wait for
some unknown amount of time for this to complete? Is this an important 1.8
feature?

2) Ev2. The notes say this is believed to be in a releasable state? Is
there any work needed to verify this? Do we need to remove the use of Ev2
in any place to avoid releasing with compatibility shims in use? Are we
comfortable that the API is complete?

3) libsvn_ra_serf stabilization. I know there have been a couple concerns
that Philip has raised (EAGAIN and the random failures). Plus there are
several issues here (not all of the issues here are serf issues):
http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/buglist.cgi?issue_status=UNCONFIRMED&issue_status=NEW&issue_status=STARTED&issue_status=REOPENED&subcomponent=libsvn_ra_serf&subcomponent=libsvn_ra_neon

Who can drive these issues to completion? Is there any additional testing
work we should do to try and determine the stability of serf in light of
the fact that we're planning to remove neon?

4) Symmetric merge. Should be done per julianf.

5) Inherited properties/Server-dictated configuration. This is marked as
completed but I see some discussion over property names still ongoing.

6) Conflict storage. This is marked as done but there was discussion in
the past about needing a wc format bump? Where are we with that?

Beyond that we have the ordinary reviews of tests (pburba has said he's
working on this), new apis and issue triage (cmpilato seems to have been
doing some issue triage).

Also at the risk of opening a can of worms we need to decide on the wc
upgrade issue? I can say that the impression I got from Subversion Live
was that a lot of people use multiple clients and that auto-upgrade seems
bad. But we also discussed trying to handle reads from an older wcng style
wc without requiring a wc upgrade. Can someone drive this?

cmpilato started a previous thread on 1.8 progress but it got distracted
with some other issues. A number of the same questions were outstanding
then. So I'd appreciate if we can keep this thread focused on the issues
at hand and not things we'd like to see in the future that aren't on the
roadmap.

In particular I'd like to see the outcome of the thread be that we have
some idea what work we feel remains and who is going to be doing it.

Lastly I don't want to give the impression that I'm rushing 1.8. However,
I would like us to see us focus on the things we want to get done with 1.8.
Received on 2012-11-01 19:43:18 CET

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