On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:44 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> On 04/10/2013 12:33 PM, Daniel Shahaf 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.
>
> Either revert or privatize them -- whatever's easiest. Now's really not the
> best time to be trying to introduce new UI, methinks.
>
+1
--
Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2013-04-10 19:49:30 CEST