Thompson, Graeme (AELE) wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any possibility that
> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1256 could be
> implemented. The code looks to have been written, and after speaking
> with the author Phil Marek, there seems to be quite a few people who
> are
> using this branch of the source, which is now getting quite a long way
> behind the main branch.
>
> What would be the best way for people to register the fact that this
> is
> a feature that people want to be implemented in the main development
> branch?
Well, my first impulse is to recommend registering and voting for the
issue, but it's already got 16(!) votes. There are only 10 issues with
16 or more votes, as follows:
No. Type Pri Developer Status Votes
898 DEFECT P2 issues@subversion NEW 49
implement true renames
937 ENHANC P4 issues@subversion NEW 36
svn:externals should work with files as well as directories
1336 FEATUR P3 issues@subversion NEW 36
svn:externals should allow relative paths
707 FEATUR P5 fitz NEW 33
Need support for opaque collections/"document bundles" in wo
516 TASK P4 issues@subversion NEW 31
svn obliterate
1844 ENHANC P3 issues@subversion NEW 27
SVN clients should be able to authenticate using NTLM/SSPI
695 DEFECT P2 breser NEW 23
"svn checkout -N" should actually work.
1974 FEATUR P3 issues@subversion NEW 23
server-side config which 'broadcasts' to clients
823 ENHANC P3 issues@subversion NEW 19
svn checkout a single file
1256 FEATUR P3 issues@subversion NEW 16
Ability to preserve last modification time of files under ve
Note that only two of these "top 10" issues are currently assigned to a
developer, and all of them are still in "new" status. (Interestingly
enough, merge tracking is actually 12th on the list; that's lower than I
was expecting.) The first issue in resolved/verified/closed status is
tied for 12th place with 12 votes. Kind of makes one wonder if the
developers pay attention to the votes or not, so maybe we need to
organize some sort of grass-roots petition or something. I'm not sure.
Looking at the history of 1256, it originally blocked the 1.0 release;
Philip's patch was noted on June 3rd, 2003; at the end of July, 2003,
they decided to postpone this issue in favor of setting modification
times to last commit time; it seems to have slipped under the radar for
1.1, but was later marked for consideration in 1.2; one month later, it
was bumped to be considered for 1.3. There are a total of 11
non-resolved issues in that category, only two of which have votes.
There've been rumors floating around that we're nearing the 1.3 release,
which makes me wonder if it's at or near code lockdown, in which case
these 11 will probably end up getting bumped up to join the nine under
consideration for 1.4. Take that last bit with a grain of salt, at
least, since there are 14 open issues with a 1.3 target, most of which
don't even have developers at this point. So either we're not as close
to 1.3 as I thought, or those are going to get bumped.
Isn't rampant specualtion fun?
Anyhow, I, too, would love to see this branch merged into the official
codebase soon. My company's a bit leery of using anything that's not at
an official "stable" release, so we aren't using this patch, though we'd
like it.
-David
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Nov 10 15:03:52 2005