Re: Time to branch 1.9

Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 17.02.2015 16:11, Julian Foad wrote:
>> On 2015-02-16 Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> 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 [...]

I've bumped most of them to 'unsheduled'[1] and closed a couple. Two remain:

#4467 "blame youngest to oldest needs to handle SVN_INVALID_REVNUM"

    Looks like some changes to the blame API since 1.8 are not correct.
    As a regression since 1.8, we should fix this.

#4506 "reintegrate into sparse working copy causes trouble"

    I'm not sure if this is a regression. I'll take a look at it.

- Julian

[1] In the past we have tended to bump their target milestone to the next minor release, but I think it's an invalid assumption that bugs not fixed in 1.9 should automatically be considered specifically for 1.10. Instead, issues should be assigned to 1.10 only when there is a specific reason to do so, such as being a regression from 1.9 which, by definition, these are not.
Received on 2015-02-17 17:09:14 CET