On 17.02.2015 16:11, Julian Foad wrote:
> On 2015-02-16 Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 12.02.2015 11:12, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> Looks like we're on track for branching around the beginning of next week.
>>> If there are no further objections, and the pin-externals branch gets
>>> merged soon-ish, I intend to create the 1.9 release branch on Sunday
>>> night or Monday early morning (UTC). Ben has kindly been volunteered to
>>> RM the first 1.9 release candidate
>> I decided not to create the branch yet, as we have a number of (actual
>> and potential) release blockers.
> Am I alone in wondering why we keep delaying?
We don't "keep" delaying, I just happened to remember that we should,
according to our own process docs, review blocker issues before
branching. I don't think this was time wasted.
> We should NOT be waiting for pin-externals. It's lovely, but it's a last-minute mini-feature addition and, as such, it doesn't need to block 1.9.0: if it's ready, we ship it, if not, we remove it or ship it with bugs.
>> These are the issues tagged with the 1.9.0 milestone:
> Only two of these remain now.
>> * 4556: "Replace 'svn youngest' with another UI"
>> * 4560: "pin-externals doc string and behavior not clear"
> On the scale of release-blocker concerns for 1.9 these are trivial -- we shouldn't be holding up the release for them.
> Issue #4556: Let's remove 'svn youngest' right away, and a replacement UI can be pushed into 1.9.0 if it's ready in time, or not if it's not. The UI is a nice-to-have, not a hard requirement.
Ack. I'll merge the removal from the svn-info-detail branch now, close
your issue and reopen #4299 as 1.9-consider.
> Issue #4560: That's surely an acceptable task to be addressed during release stabilization.
>> These are defects tagged 1.9.0-consider: http://s.apache.org/Nft
>> I'd appreciate getting some help with these; some are probably already
>> fixed, a few may be release blockers.
> There are 19 defects currently tagged 1.9.0-consider. I'll go through these now and see if any are potential blockers, but they *shouldn't* be, if they have the "-consider" tag.
> Let's not hold up long for this, either.
> Makes sense?
Yup. I'll create the branch 'Round Midnight (thank you, Mr. Monk!)
Received on 2015-02-17 16:26:20 CET