[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Time to branch 1.9

From: Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2014 20:50:04 +0300

On 15 November 2014 04:27, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:07 AM, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 7 November 2014 03:00, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> ...
>>
>> > In my mind, we have code. Start the release process. If it gets (3) +1
>> > votes
>> > for release, then it goes out the door. Pretty simple. Is it just that
>> > some
>> > people don't want Feature A in that release? They better find a
>> > good/technical reason to veto, then. And that will only pause it, until
>> > the
>> > problem is resolved.
>> >...
>> Actually, I have used my veto on the log addressing feature two months ago
>> [1].
>>
>> Also I proposed to implement major FSFS performance related changes in
>> the experimental FSX format that also going to be released in Subversion
>> 1.9.
>>
>> The full log-addressing feature story with detailed explanation of my
>> technical reasons is given in the same thread [2].
[..]
>> I still strongly believe that we should not release the log-addressing feature
>> in the 1.9 release. We should not make it the default option for all the
>> upgraded repositories, at least. This is my position as a full-committer and
>> PMC member. I'm just doing my best and try to use all the available and
>> acceptable means to defend my position.
>
>
> Those emails were not very concrete, on what your specific issues are. With
> your commit of r1637184, I'm going to use my VP hat and state that whether
> that past veto is valid or not, had reasons or not, is now considered
> closed. I want to see us all get past the back/forth and the ambiguity. So
> consider these last few months closed, and we will start anew.
>
Most of my concerns were related to the mixed-addressing mode. As
mixed-addressing is removed r1637184 and several critical bugs were
fixed during two last months, I'm currently not aware about any
particular technical issues in the log addressing feature that can
justify a technical veto.

However, I'm still -0.5 to release this feature as a part of FSFS,
because FSX is a much better place for it. But this is not a veto.

> Second part: vetoes may be applied at any time before a release, on any
> change going into that release. It does matter whether the change was
> applied yesterday, or six months ago. Thus, Ivan: if you still want to apply
> to veto to a change, then please (re)state it now, and the community can
> resolve it moving forward from today.
>
Maybe I misunderstand you, but it's not clear from your email: does it
matter or not when a change was applied?

-- 
Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2014-11-17 18:50:52 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.