Re: stabilize means STABILIZE

[Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>]

Greg Stein wrote:
> 
> We're trying to stabilize and release 1.0.  This kind of work appears to be *very* contrary to that.

Of course I am aware that we are trying to stabilise for release 1.0.  The problem is knowing where to draw the line between "stabilisation" and "destabilisation".  This change was not a critical bug fix but nor was it, in my opinion, significantly destabilising.

I hear your point that we should only be doing critical fixes, but this is not the message I have got from the mailing list so far.  I was led to believe that we are going to branch for stabilisation, and that non-critical work can continue on the trunk.  I would welcome further clarification.


> Think about it: you had to REVERT the change. What does that say? When was
[...]

I apologise for checking in poor code, especially at this stage.  However, I did post it for pre-commit review, and specifically said that I wasn't sure about the "memset" part (which, as far as I am aware, is the only bad part).  I received only positive feedback.  Now, perhaps I didn't leave enough time for other reviewers, and anyway I don't blame review, or lack of it, for my mistakes.  I was too hasty, and I'm sorry for it.

- Julian


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org

Re: stabilize means STABILIZE

[Sander Striker <st...@apache.org>]

On Wed, 2003-12-10 at 16:53, Julian Foad wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
> > 
> > We're trying to stabilize and release 1.0.  This kind of work appears to be *very* contrary to that.
> 
> Of course I am aware that we are trying to stabilise for release 1.0.  The problem is knowing where to
> draw the line between "stabilisation" and "destabilisation".  This change was not a critical bug fix
> but nor was it, in my opinion, significantly destabilising.
> 
> I hear your point that we should only be doing critical fixes, but this is not the message I have got
> from the mailing list so far.  I was led to believe that we are going to branch for stabilisation,
> and that non-critical work can continue on the trunk.  I would welcome further clarification.

Since the estimated time to 1.0 is short, I thought we decided to
stabilize on trunk and branch _after_ 1.0.  However, if this period is
longer than a few weeks, I would certainly advocate branching as to
not stifle development.

> > Think about it: you had to REVERT the change. What does that say? When was
> [...]
> 
> I apologise for checking in poor code, especially at this stage.  However, I did post it for pre-commit
> review, and specifically said that I wasn't sure about the "memset" part (which, as far as I am aware,
> is the only bad part).  I received only positive feedback.  Now, perhaps I didn't leave enough time for
> other reviewers, and anyway I don't blame review, or lack of it, for my mistakes.  I was too hasty, and
> I'm sorry for it.

I think Greg snapped at you a bit hard.  We know your intentions are
good and the tree is in a healthy state.  Let's move on (while slowly,
as to not destabilize the tree ;).


Sander  

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org