On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Daniel Shahaf <danielsh_at_apache.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:34:12AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> On 04/10/2013 11:23 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> > So shall we get this branch branched very soon? For the sake of making a
>> > decision, I'll suggest that we should try hard to get the things above
>> > resolved by the end of tomorrow, and that even if we don't they are not
>> > blockers, so:
>> >
>> > Let's branch on Friday.
>> >
>> > Any support or objections?
>>
>> None. In fact, thanks to your email, I had to discard my own draft mail
>> which said similar things but suggested we branch on Monday. :-)
>>
>> (Paul, Bert: If you're watching for that mail from me, it won't get sent
>> now -- we can discuss and +1 on this thread just as easily.)
>>
>> +1 to a Friday branch unless folks raise reasonable objections.
>
> Right now, trunk has APIs backing an 'svnadmin info' (or 'svnlook info')
> command but not a UI for them. (Some of them have unit tests.) I think we
> don't want to release with just the half-backed APIs, so we'll have to either
> revert them or add a UI for them. As far as I'm concerned reverting is fine,
> and I can continue the work on trunk and propose for backport before, say,
> beta1.
>
> This concerns svn_fs_info_* and svn_repos_info_*.
From my experience such last minute API changes especially without
real usage/UI often leads to problems and release delays.
So I'm in favor to revert svn_repos_info*/svn_fs_info_* API on trunk,
make branch and bring API back with UI implementation.
Subversion 1.8 already has many useful features. And svnadmin info
would be first feature for 1.9. It would one more argument to release
1.9 earlier :)
--
Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2013-04-10 19:22:59 CEST