Johan Corveleyn wrote on Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 12:52:03 +0100:
> 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
> >>>> Windows.
> >>>> The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on
> >>>> trunk_at_r1783880.
> >>>>
> >>>> Full committers, please get this release from
> >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
> >>>> 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
> >>> does
> >>> 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
> >>> premature.
> >>>
> >>> Does anyone share these concerns? If not, I can release alpha2 this
> >>> week.
> >>>
> >> 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.
> >
> > +1
>
> Agreed, addressing the SHA1 issues sounds important enough to wait
> with the alpha until we have some meaningful fixes in there.
>
I think there are two separate questions here:
- Should we release alpha2
- Should we release alpha3 with sha1 fixes
I'm happy to join the consensus and +1 the latter. However, I also +1
the former. I don't see a reason to hold alpha2: it is rolled, it is
voted on, and being an alpha it comes with no compatibility strings
attached. So I lean on the side on releasing alpha2 and indicating in
the release announcement (the mail to announce@ and the index.html
blurb) and an alpha3 is expected within ${timeframe} that will include
sha1 fixes.
> 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?
And 'svnadmin load' — but why should we wait for all these to be
written? It's not a release candidate, it's just an alpha, and we do
have features that we want users to test (stsp's conflicts work).
Cheers,
Daniel
Received on 2017-03-06 14:23:57 CET