On 4/2/14, 2:37 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> I didn't vote for 1.9.0-alpha2 because I believe that current trunk
> should not be released even with alpha label. So effectively my vote
> was -0.5, but I decided didn't express my vote if will be 3+3 people
> interesting in driving 1.9.0-alpha2. But reality shown that developers
> are not interested so much in 1.9.0-alpha2.
You're entitled to vote as you see fit. But I don't think the reality matches
what you're saying. There are only a handful of people that ever vote for
Specifically over the last year (probably longer but I got tired of looking)
the following people have voted for a Windows release:
Mark has said that his Windows setup has rotted. Paul hasn't said anything, so
I can't make any assumptions about his motives. Johan and Bert voted +1.
The lack of one vote hardly seems to indicate a disinterest from a plurality of
developers. Obviously, you're not interested.
> Changing release polices
> to overcome developers opinion is not good for community IMHO, but
> this is topic for another thread.
Considering that you didn't vote (for or against), I can't possibly be trying
to overcome opinion. Not one person has posted on the 1.9.0-alpha2 thread and
said we shouldn't release this. There have been some questions about if
certain breakages should stop it. In fact several developers have wondered why
it wasn't released already, Julian posted this to the thread, others did so in
Now that you've actually raised an objection we can do something to try and
> The only big feature is fsfs7, but the past shows that users even
> didn't try Subversion on client before final release, so expecting
> that some sysadmin will try alpha on server doesn't make sense.
FSFS7 has nothing to do with the desire to release an alpha (in my opinion).
I'll point at the following changes:
changes to the conflict resolver (some of which I'm -1 on)
Those changes probably could use feedback from end users about if they're
working right, if the UI has issues, etc...
I intend to include a statement asking for feedback on these changes with the
release. I'm sure other people can think of additional things they'd like to
ask for feedback for.
I know that WANdisco has had customers try pre-releases before in test
environments (server and client) to get feedback. I'm positive we'll have that
happen with this release.
> Even more I believe that fsfs7 stuff and log addressing stuff should
> be reverted from trunk and such significant fsfs format changes should
> be implemented in fsx to give users a choice: use stable and proven
> format or something really new and never tested.
I don't recall seeing objections to FSFS7 being on trunk and thus slated for
1.9.0 before this email. Seems rather odd to wait till now to object to them.
Even supposing we decided to remove it. There's nothing stopping us from doing
this if we release 1.9.0-alpha2. We flat out don't promise compatibility
between alpha/beta or even release candidate versions (we have even explicitly
broken support for formats that have been in our release candidates in the past).
So I'm really not understanding the objection here. If you really think FSFS7
should be removed I think you should start a thread about that.
Received on 2014-04-02 19:02:33 CEST