1.8 Release Status : Issue triage

Re the roadmap item "Issue Triage -- Review open issues for the 1.8.0,
1.8-consider, and 1.7.x, milestones". A quick overview of where we
are:

There are 8 issues with the 1.7.x milestone. I reviewed each, none of
them is a 1.8 blocker. All are either neon-only or are limited to
1.7.x and are already fixed on 1.8. So it looks like we are all set
here.

3869 DEFECT P2 All issues_at_subversion michael_o NEW 1.7.x svn
fails with segmentation fault when neon cannot obtain cr
4117 DEFECT P3 All issues_at_subversion philip NEW 1.7.x ra_neon
hides "GNOME keyring locked and non-interactive"
4155 DEFECT P4 All issues_at_subversion svarnau NEW 1.7.x Merge
conflict text of expanded keyword incorrect when svn:k
4191 DEFECT P3 All issues_at_subversion foma1000 NEW 1.7.x Wrong
commit to tag from "mixed" local copy: trunk + some br
4219 DEFECT P3 All issues_at_subversion julianfoad NEW 1.7.x svn
delete fails with "403 Forbidden" if root is not readabl
4254 DEFECT P3 All issues_at_subversion philip NEW 1.7.x 1.7
client asserts setting property on 1.8 symlink
4257 DEFECT P3 All issues_at_subversion philip NEW 1.7.x neon
get_dir leads to bogus NODES rows
4271 DEFECT P3 PC issues_at_subversion ochapman NEW 1.7.x
        ra_neon fails to properly handle newly introduced Neon error

~~~~~

We have 82 issues with the 1.8.-consider milestone. A lot of these
are older issues that just keep getting pushed to the next release (68
of these were filed in 2011 or earlier). Now might be a great time to
take a look at any 1.8-consider issues you've reported or which are
assigned to you and set them to 'unscheduled' if that is more
appropriate. My assumption about these issues is that we are using
the '1-8-consider' milestone to explicitly state that these issues are
not 1.8 blockers, more of a "nice to have if we have time before
1.8."...if that assumption is not shared with the wider community then
we'll need a more thorough review of these issues.

~~~~~

We have 13 issues with the 1.8.0 milestone and which are thus presumed
blockers for 1.8. They breakdown as follows:

6 are actively being worked on (or at least have recently had a dev
assigned to them):
4037 DEFECT P3 All philip stsp STARTE 1.8.0 auto-merge
locally moved dir with incoming file/dir move dur
4232 DEFECT P3 All philip stsp NEW 1.8.0 local moves in
mixed-revision working copies
4284 DEFECT P3 All issues_at_subversion danielsh STARTE 1.8.0
        svnauthz-validate: --username argument should become a subco
4238 DEFECT P3 All julianfoad stsp NEW 1.8.0 merge -cA,B with
--accept option aborts if rA conflicts
4291 DEFECT P3 All philip rhuijben NEW 1.8.0 Commit of a move
with a move of a subtree below
3990 TASK P3 All cmpilato danielsh NEW 1.8.0 ra_serf as
default requires server config changes

1 is marked as STARTED and assigned to a dev, but it's not clear that
this is actually a blocker or if any ongoing work is taking place:
4280 DEFECT P3 All brane danielsh STARTE 1.8.0 prompt the
controlling terminal, rather than stdin

1 is marked as STARTED and is *not* assigned to a dev, so it's not
clear if any ongoing work is taking place. Nor does it seem to be a
hard 1.8 blocker:
4285 DEFECT P3 All issues_at_subversion danielsh STARTE 1.8.0
        svnpubsub API changes

2 have not been marked as started nor been assigned to a dev and look
to be legitimate blockers:
4293 DEFECT P3 All issues_at_subversion stsp NEW 1.8.0 cannot
move dir containing file external
4290 TASK P3 All issues_at_subversion cmpilato NEW 1.8.0 Remove
(or make permanent) WC-NG temporary APIs

1 has not been marked as started nor been assigned but is tied to an
open serf issue:
4274 DEFECT P3 All issues_at_subversion philip NEW 1.8.0 serf
client hangs when server crashes

2 have not been marked as started nor been assigned and appear to be a
legitmate blockers, but have had no activity for many months:
4211 DEFECT P3 All issues_at_subversion philip NEW 1.8.0 FSFS
verify needs to handle node verification better
3995 TASK P3 All issues_at_subversion danielsh NEW 1.8.0
        Redesign svn_fs_verify() for 1.8

For those last 7 issues, if you are the reporter, the assignee, and/or
know the problem space well perhaps you could take a look and comment,
assign, start/close, etc. as appropriate.

-- 
Paul T. Burba
CollabNet, Inc. -- www.collab.net -- Enterprise Cloud Development
Skype: ptburba