On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_apache.org> wrote:
> On 06.03.2017 12:27, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>> On 06.03.2017 10:38, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:54:15PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>>> The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing.
>>>> The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on
>>>> The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on
>>>> Full committers, please get this release from
>>>> and add your signatures there.
>>>> Thank you!
>>> I am on the fence about actually releasing 1.10.0-alpha2.
>>> I am a bit worried about announcing a new 1.8/1.9/1.10 release which
>>> not address any SHA1 issues. And I believe that 1.10 should do something
>>> meaningful about SHA1 so the alpha is not feature complete and feels
>>> Does anyone share these concerns? If not, I can release alpha2 this
>> FWIW, the server-side fixes for FSFS should go up tonight.
>> FSX should follow soon and BDB is not affected, IIRC.
> We never implemented rep sharing for BDB.
>> I think alpha3 would be a good idea. It would also fix the
>> svnconflict.c compilation issue making this a more
>> "rounded" release.
Agreed, addressing the SHA1 issues sounds important enough to wait
with the alpha until we have some meaningful fixes in there.
Apart from the server-side fix(es), I was under the impression that
the working copy also needed fixing (being able to store collisions in
the pristine store), and perhaps the ra_serf protocol?
Received on 2017-03-06 12:52:29 CET