On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Ben Reser <ben_at_reser.org> wrote:
> 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.
I jumped the gun a bit when I merged it back to trunk. I updated the road map.
> 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)
Summary coming shortly.
> , 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.
--
Paul T. Burba
CollabNet, Inc. -- www.collab.net -- Enterprise Cloud Development
Skype: ptburba
Received on 2012-11-01 20:00:58 CET