On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>wrote:
> > 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
> > in any place to avoid releasing with compatibility shims in use? Are we
> > comfortable that the API is complete?
> Julian expressed doubt about whether the API was ready for prime-time.
> C-Mike expressed concern about the extremely low bus factor.
> Hyrum acknowledged both, and continued with: "We can always shuffle
> around or document the things as experimental, so committing ourselves to
> the API as this point isn't my concern. The only real limiting around Ev2
> and 1.8 is issue #4116 which is svnrdump failures over ra_serf. In the
> issue, I propose using Ev2 to get around the problem, since the dumpfile
> format is so incongruent with the editor. Of course, we don't *have* to do
> that, but as I've thought about it, any solution will require a bit o'
> caching---which we've already implemented as part of the Ev2 shims. We
> *might* be able to implement the svnrdump editor as Ev2, shim the thing on
> the client side (which gives us the required caching) and release that way.
> Or there might be a better solution I'm overlooking because I've got Ev2
> the brain."
This is basically boils down to "rdump isn't completely Delta Editor
friendly, which interacts badly with Serf." This problem is only
tangentially related to Ev2, but it was proposed as one of the possible
solutions. It's probably better to try and pursue other solutions to this
independent of Ev2.
As for Ev2 itself, I don't see anything that should be blocking 1.8. If
people are uncomfortable shipping the API, some documentation and/or header
hackery should be sufficient to make it mutable in future releases. As far
as I know, all the Ev2 work is entirely self-contained within Subversion.
OWNERSHIP: Hyrum's got the most experience here, but due to his time
> contention, we may very well have no owner for this at all. That's bad.
Received on 2012-12-01 13:59:41 CET