Simon Large wrote:
> Molle Bestefich wrote:
>
>>>>1) 1.1.4 from trunk
>>>>2) 1.1.4 from /tags/version-1.1.3 with bugfixes
>>>>3) no 1.1.4 at all but go straight to 1.2
>>
>>+1, get the various user interface improvements out so that it'll get
>>some more hammering from actual users. Disable the new cache per
>>default in the release, though, see below...
>
> I go for option 1 as well. I just started looking back through the log
> messages since 1.1.3 and there are a lot of bugfixes as well as a lot of
> new features. Trying to merge these could be a nightmare, and it would
> be easy to miss out an essential step from a bugfix which has been done
> in stages over nearly 400 revisions.
I've already created the branch from the 1.1.3 tag and merged the
bugfixes. It took some time, but there were surprisingly very few conflicts.
> Some of the bugfixes I found in the first 100 revisions are:
> Spaces in URLs
> Export-all exports .svn dirs
> Making scintilla controls work with Korean, Chinese, etc.
> A lot more little fixes to make scintilla behave better (and not crash).
> Many double quote problems with external tools.
> Need Thunderbird support in crashrpt.
> Remove multiple files causes crash.
> ... the list goes on
The list of revisions I merged so far:
2704, 2726, 2727, 2748, 2765, 2530, 2447, 2448, 2471, 2491, 2494, 2506,
2511-2515, 2517-2519, 2526-2527, 2536, 2543-2545, 2547, 2551-2552,
2558-2560, 2564, 2567-2568, 2570, 2574, 2576-2577, 2582-2586, 2591-2592,
2601, 2608, 2612-2613, 2622, 2637, 2644-2645, 2677, 2716, 2773, 2506,
2511-2513
I'll check which *.po file changes have to be merged back later.
> And of course there are the better branch and merge dialogs. It's easy
> to forget just how much has happened in a few weeks.
Yes, I've been very busy ;)
> If you go back to 1.1.3 plus fixes, you have to replace the nightly.
> Will all the nightly testers downgrade to give it a good shake out, or
> will they just stick with the last good nightly? You could end up with a
> hardly-tested 1.1.4 which creates more bug reports than HEAD.
I don't think it will have more bug reports than HEAD. After all, I'm
only merging bugfixes.
>>>The new Cache is mostly stable now, but I think issue #4 is still a
>>>blocking issue
>>>(<http://tortoisesvn.berlios.de/issues/?do=details&id=4>)
>>
>>"mostly stable", it still hangs explorer on occassion, AFAICS.
>>I think the cache should be postponed to a 1.2-based release.
>>It would be OK to include it but disable it per default though, that
>>would probably just mean
>>that it gets more testing from the more daring of users :-)...
>>Perhaps a warning with small letters would be in place..
>
> I would say disable the cache by default, but maybe add it to the
> settings dialog (temporarily) so more people can test it, and switch it
> off if there are big problems.
It's not just the cache! Remember: we got rid of Win98/Me support
shortly after the 1.1.3 release. So HEAD won't even compile for those
systems anymore. And I think we at least owe those poor people (poor
because they still have to use such a crappy OS) another bugfix release.
Stefan
--
___
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Wed Mar 23 17:57:16 2005