> 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
Hyrum, this is the bit that gets me. The WC-NG effort is fantastic
but is real, true effort with a lot of testing. If the 1.6 cycle is
considered fast and 1.6 is not yet final then we're talking 9 months
(I saw 6 mentioned, that sounds hopeful) to get this improvement.
Can we not have WC-NG in 1.8 and get a 1.7 ASAP after 1.6 that has a
fix for this locking performance issue.
It seems we're either holding off just because the release number
(1.7) has already been assigned for WC-NG or because we're holding
back this fix to make the 1.6 -> WC-NG performance comparison look
On my laptop, defragged and as disk-cached as possible, an empty
update from a LAN server takes me 1m30s with svn://... Doing an pull
into a branch-with-working-tree in Bazaar takes 30s - and Bazaar is
considered one of the slower DVCS tools. In nine months there might
be a few users to show that nice and shiny WC-NG to.
Is there really no way this number of voices here can't shift the
project plan and get an interim fix in - redundant once WC-NG arrives
(which I am excited about, don't you worry).
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-02-18 03:19:49 CET