Branko Čibej wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 20:12:11 +0200:
> On 01.07.2013 20:08, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Lieven Govaerts wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 19:44:24 +0200:
> >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Ben Reser <ben_at_reser.org> wrote:
> >>>> I know this is a holiday week for some people but I'd like to start
> >>>> producing a 1.8.1 next Monday. So if everyone can look at the STATUS
> >>>> file for 1.8.x and get any things they want in there I'll produce a
> >>>> 1.8.1 tarball for voting sometime on Monday US/Pacific (UTC-7) time.
> >>> Sounds good. I have kind of last track, do we need a new Serf release
> >>> to fix some of the problems with ra_serf?
> >> Yes we do, for NTLM support and the ssl tunnel authentication fixes.
> > Do we need to block the 1.8.1 release on that release? Or can we
> > release 1.8.1 and say "Upgrade to serf 1.2.2 when that is released"?
>
> In my opinion it's OK to release 1.8.1, and just put in the release
> notes that in order to fix those problems, one needs to build with
> Serf-1.2.2 or later. I expect that most people can get along just fine
> with Serf-1.2.1; and, as Greg pointed out, Serf bugs are not Subversion
> bugs. There are a number of important fixes ready for 1.8.1 that do not
> depend on Serf.
Sure. My point was whether ra_serf would require changes too. If
fixing the user issues requires just serf changes, we can cut our
release whenever; if it requires ra_serf changes in addition to serf
changes, it would be nice to get those ra_serf changes in 1.8.1.
Received on 2013-07-01 20:31:31 CEST