On Feb 16, 2009, at 7:10 PM, Ruslan Sivak wrote:
> Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> On Feb 13, 2009, at 4:09 PM, Bob Archer wrote:
>>> I thought someone in this thread said he offered a patch to move
>>> to a
>>> single lock file per folder and was told they didn't want to put
>>> it into
>>> 1.6 and the it would be moot for 1.7?
>> (Sorry it took a while to respond...working on 1.6 release stuff.)
>> Bert did say he had a patch, and I also would be interested in
>> seeing it. However, this late in the 1.6 release cycle, somebody
>> could swoop in with a feature which made Subversion use 90% less
>> disk, run 10 times faster, and boost your bank account by $10
>> million, and the developers still wouldn't accept it. As
>> developers, I'm sure most of us here understand the rationale
>> behind such behavior. In this circumstance, it's really just a
>> case of unfortunate timing.
>> The same problem which Bert claims to fix in his patch will be
>> fixed to a greater degree in a more robust way as part of WC-NG,
>> due in 1.7. It's *that* work for which I'd welcome patches (and
>> testers, and early adopters, etc).
> I haven't been following up on 1.6. What features should we be
> expecting? Would any of them be as useful as a usable workspace?
The release notes (http://subversion.tigris.org/svn_1.6_releasenotes.html
) will contain an overview of the new features to expect. As the
release gets closer, the page will get fleshed out a bit. There are a
couple of features which I like so much, I've been running nightly
builds for the last few months.
> Personally, I've just recently moved to 1.5. Before that I believe
> we were on 1.4 for what seems like forever. Serious merging issues
> have just been worked out with 1.5 ( in the 1.5.5 releases).
> Are there really that many new features that are coming down the
> pipeline that it's time for a 1.6 release and a 1.7 down the road?
There are a number of new features in 1.6, some of which are user-
visible, others which are not as visible. The Subversion community is
trying hard to do more frequent minor releases, in an effort to cut
down on the amount of new stuff in each release. This makes
development more manageable, decreases the new testing surface area,
and hopefully gives users access to more features more frequently.
Compared to the almost 2-year cycle for 1.5, 9 months for 1.6 is quite
> Personally, other then a bit of whacky merging, I'm fairly happy
> with the feature set of SVN as it stands now, but would love for it
> not to be so SLOW...
> It makes it really difficult to conform to any sort of best
> practices when updates and merges take several minutes each
> (especially when you're on normal speed drives and it can take up to
> 10 minutes for an update, and probably much longer for a merge)/
Understood, which is why we're working hard to get wc-ng ready for
1.7. I think we'd all like to have a faster working copy library.
Unfortunately, the design has been completed for quite some time, but
only in the last few months have developers shown interested in
implementing it. Help is always appreciated!
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-02-17 04:29:01 CET