You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Lieven Govaerts <sv...@mobsol.be> on 2006/12/19 13:44:42 UTC
Time for 1.4.3?
I don't know if this has already been discussed on IRC, but I propose to start
releasing 1.4.3.
The current 1.4.x branch contains two fixes for svn crashes (both on Windows)
which based on the nr of emails we got on dev@ and users@ are frequently
encountered.
Looking at STATUS there are two major proposed changes with a -1 (rpm for
AuroraLinux and the GSSAPI/SSPI issue), the rest are relatively minor (in
comparison). I'll setup a Solaris VM tonight to test r22501.
I also noticed a commit to the 1.3.x branch, is there a need to release 1.3.3
too?
Lieven
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Time for 1.4.3?
Posted by Daniel Rall <dl...@collab.net>.
Malcolm R. wrote:
> Sounds fine to me, but I'd like to see some of the outstanding
> entries in STATUS merged first, particularly the one allowing us to
> configure against the current shipping version of Neon without
> aborting.
I'd like to see a 1.4.3 rolled soon.
The r22253 group, r22466, r22501, and possibly r22609 would be good
additions. The r22346 group walks the line between bug fix and
feature, but I personally wouldn't be against including it.
On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Max Bowsher wrote:
> Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> > I don't know if this has already been discussed on IRC, but I propose to start
> > releasing 1.4.3.
>
> It would be nice to get a fix to the "JavaHL creates spurious $HOME/auth
> directory" regression since 1.3.x done.
>
> Anyone looking at that?
I started looking into that, but am still getting setup to reproduce
the problem. If anyone's futher along, I'm happy to step aside and
review a patch instead.
- Dan
Re: Time for 1.4.3?
Posted by Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net>.
Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> I don't know if this has already been discussed on IRC, but I propose to start
> releasing 1.4.3.
It would be nice to get a fix to the "JavaHL creates spurious $HOME/auth
directory" regression since 1.3.x done.
Anyone looking at that?
Max.
Re: Time for 1.4.3?
Posted by Lieven Govaerts <sv...@mobsol.be>.
Quoting Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@red-bean.com>:
> On 12/19/06, Malcolm Rowe <ma...@farside.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > There's a potential for svn_stringbuf's to become unterminated when
> > their underlying buffer is reallocated (which occurs at least the first
> > time we append data to them). On the one hand, that's quite important,
> > but on the other, we've not many complaints. If we ever do 1.3.3, it's
> > good that this fix is in it, but I don't think we need to do it
> > desperately.
>
> Is this fix already in the 1.4.x branch?
>
r22739
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Time for 1.4.3?
Posted by Malcolm Rowe <ma...@farside.org.uk>.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 09:05:17AM -0600, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> >There's a potential for svn_stringbuf's to become unterminated when
> >their underlying buffer is reallocated (which occurs at least the first
> >time we append data to them). On the one hand, that's quite important,
> >but on the other, we've not many complaints. If we ever do 1.3.3, it's
> >good that this fix is in it, but I don't think we need to do it
> >desperately.
>
> Is this fix already in the 1.4.x branch?
>
Yes, r22739.
This bug dates to r1, by the way, so it cannot be that serious.
Regards,
Malcolm
Re: Time for 1.4.3?
Posted by Malcolm Rowe <ma...@farside.org.uk>.
On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 02:44:42PM +0100, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> I don't know if this has already been discussed on IRC, but I propose to start
> releasing 1.4.3.
>
Sounds fine to me, but I'd like to see some of the outstanding entries
in STATUS merged first, particularly the one allowing us to configure
against the current shipping version of Neon without aborting.
> I also noticed a commit to the 1.3.x branch, is there a need to release 1.3.3
> too?
>
There's a potential for svn_stringbuf's to become unterminated when
their underlying buffer is reallocated (which occurs at least the first
time we append data to them). On the one hand, that's quite important,
but on the other, we've not many complaints. If we ever do 1.3.3, it's
good that this fix is in it, but I don't think we need to do it
desperately.
Regards,
Malcolm