On 11.05.2010 01:00, Simon Large wrote:
> On 10 May 2010 18:03, Stefan Küng<tortoisesvn_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 09.05.2010 22:58, Simon Large wrote:
>>> Hi guys,
>>> I just read this quote from CMike on the CollabNet newsletter,
>>> referring to the SVN roadmap.
>>> "An admitted shortcoming of this roadmap is its lack of associated
>>> release dates. Realistically speaking, I think the myth of returning
>>> to six-month release cycles in Subversion has been dispelled by
>>> experience. The relatively easy work we were doing years ago is all
>>> done, leaving only the challenging stuff. I suspect this means we'll
>>> have roughly 9-15 month release cycles, at least until more of the
>>> larger plumbing-type tasks are completed."
>>> That's a very long release cycle for TSVN to follow. Is it worth
>>> trying again at breaking the link between SVN's version numbers and
>> Have you read this?
> Yes, I contributed to that thread. I know there was some dissent but I
> thought there were more for than against, and that we were starting to
> converge on some sort of numbering scheme.
Sometime this or maybe next week, the svn library will get rid of the
double property handling. That means the speed of the new wc format will
finally be so that we can use it.
So I'll soon switch the TSVN trunk to link against the svn trunk so I
can start implementing the new features. Once that's done, we can't make
a TSVN release without waiting for the svn release.
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [dev-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2010-05-11 19:42:26 CEST