Re: 1.9.0-alpha2 up for testing/signing
From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 12:08:03 +0100 (BST)
Ben Reser wrote:
> [...] given that we need 3 Windows votes and the only person
No, that's not fair. Don't imply that Ivan is to blame for our lack of test signatures.
I understand your frustration, Ben, but I don't think it's helpful to nag Ivan about why he didn't continue to push his concerns in the past.
Can we do two things at once? (1) Discuss what level of stability of FSFS we should eventually release in 1.9, in a *separate email thread*; and ...
>> My opinion on Subversion 1.9.0 is the following: release Subversion
... also (2) Decide what to do in the short term with this alpha release.
Here's a thought about what to do with this alpha release.
Part of Ivan's concern is the maintenance burden and the stability of the FSFS changes, and alpha testing will not really help us to reveal or understand those issues. While we discuss those issues in a separate thread, I would suggest that if alpha testing does not reveal any issues related to stability or maintenance of the server, then we learn nothing about the server changes, but that does not reduce the usefulness of the alpha testing in providing feedback about *other* changes.
Ivan, would you agree with that?
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.