On 4/2/14, 4:08 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> I'm against this release policy change:
> 1. Good support of Windows platform is one of considerable advantages
> of Subversion against other open-source version contol systems.
> Windows has very different behavior on things that Subversion relies
> on: filename case-sensitivity, behavior of deleting/moving
> files/directories with open handles and locked files.
> That's why 3+3 release policy is very important for Subversion project.
I don't think there's much harm in changing the policy for alphas and betas.
First of all these are clearly labeled as for testing purposes. The whole
point of the releases is to find problems we don't know about. If we know
about problems and we think that should hold up the alpha/beta release then we
can fix them. Given the nature of an alpha release, the code is in active
development, there are always going to be issues, even issues we might know
about but still want feedback in spite of.
If we force ourselves down the path of treating alphas and betas to the same
standard as a release candidate or a final release, we're never going to put
them out at all. Which seems to be your goal here.
I'll address your thoughts on 1.9.0-alpha2 over on that thread.
> 2. As I stated in the other thread, I personally is not confident
> enough or do not see reasons to release 1.9.0 alpha in the current
> state. That's why I haven't provided my signature for this release.
> But it's not a good idea to change the policy if somebody have doubts
> about the release. Note that most of the time we have Windows
> signatures before Unix ones for 1.8.x releases.
But with respect to policy changes. How are we supposed to know that you
object to the release if you don't communicate it. Silence = consent has
always been the policy around here. So I'm working under the assumption that
people are fine with the release, they just haven't spent the time to vote (see
the reasons I gave in response to Julian's email on the 19th).
I waited two whole weeks after that for something to happen and nothing did.
So I prodded again and Mark said he didn't have an environment. So I moved
forward with what Julian had suggested, which was changing the policy.
> So given these reasons I'm -1 on proposed release policy change.
Can you clarify if you mean this as a veto or just a vote against. I'm a tad
fuzzy if vetos apply to policy changes (maybe someone can step in here and
remind me what applies here).
Received on 2014-04-02 18:27:09 CEST