You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Sander Striker <st...@apache.org> on 2004/04/01 17:35:28 UTC
1.0.2 release, when?
Hi,
I'd like us to consider 1.0.2 between one and a few weeks.
We've seen quite a few bugfixes already, and with the proposed
fixes in STATUS for backport I feel we have enough to
warrant 1.0.2. It will also keep us excercised at doing
releases ;).
Thoughts?
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.0.2 release, when?
Posted by Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>.
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 08:42:15PM -0500, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 16:33, Greg Stein wrote:
> > 1.0.1 is currently calling itself a -dev build. I think that alone is a
> > pretty good impetus for popping out a new release.
>
> If I'm not mistaken, that's true of the tag but not of the tarball,
> right?
The tarball doesn't say it's a dev build in the --version output but the
SVN_VER_NUMTAG still is "-dev" which is wrong.
--
Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.0.2 release, when?
Posted by Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU>.
On Thu, 2004-04-01 at 16:33, Greg Stein wrote:
> 1.0.1 is currently calling itself a -dev build. I think that alone is a
> pretty good impetus for popping out a new release.
If I'm not mistaken, that's true of the tag but not of the tarball,
right?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.0.2 release, when?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@lyra.org>.
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 01:17:25PM -0600, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> "Sander Striker" <st...@apache.org> writes:
> > I'd like us to consider 1.0.2 between one and a few weeks.
> > We've seen quite a few bugfixes already, and with the proposed
> > fixes in STATUS for backport I feel we have enough to
> > warrant 1.0.2. It will also keep us excercised at doing
> > releases ;).
Big +1
>...
> 1.0.1's been pretty stable, and the diff to 1.0.2 wouldn't be that
> huge, so I'm only +/-0.
1.0.1 is currently calling itself a -dev build. I think that alone is a
pretty good impetus for popping out a new release.
Cheers,
-g
--
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.0.2 release, when?
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Ben Reser <be...@reser.org> writes:
> > In another thread, Justin said he didn't want to use any of the new
> > release procedures he and Ben are working on for 1.0.x release, rather
> > he would stick with the old release procedures for the 1.0.x line.
>
> I'm with Justin. I haven't really had time to dig into this yet much
> myself. I'm just getting caught back up with the email here right now.
> I'd rather do 1.0.2 the way we've been doing it. The exception to that
> would be pax. Which I swear I'm going to get a test tarball put up
> soon. Maybe tomorrow if I can find the time.
Sounds sensible; can't argue with that, therefore won't :-).
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.0.2 release, when?
Posted by Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>.
On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 01:17:25PM -0600, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Side issue:
>
> In another thread, Justin said he didn't want to use any of the new
> release procedures he and Ben are working on for 1.0.x release, rather
> he would stick with the old release procedures for the 1.0.x line.
I'm with Justin. I haven't really had time to dig into this yet much
myself. I'm just getting caught back up with the email here right now.
I'd rather do 1.0.2 the way we've been doing it. The exception to that
would be pax. Which I swear I'm going to get a test tarball put up
soon. Maybe tomorrow if I can find the time.
> I think that's fine, as long as we have a 1.1.0-beta1, 1.1.0-beta2,
> etc. In other words, there should be some chance to *test* the new
> release procedures on real releases before 1.1.0 itself comes out.
> That could happen with betaX releases leading up to 1.1.0, or it could
> happen with 1.0.2.
Make sense to me.
> I don't think it would be bad, per se, to use new release procedures
> for 1.0.2. True, the goal of 1.0.x releases is to avoid instability,
> but the current procedures have already caused instability in the
> 1.0.x releases :-), so the question is really one of relative risk.
I think it's more of a we haven't had time to really get anywhere on
this than a risk issue.
--
Ben Reser <be...@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: 1.0.2 release, when?
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
"Sander Striker" <st...@apache.org> writes:
> I'd like us to consider 1.0.2 between one and a few weeks.
> We've seen quite a few bugfixes already, and with the proposed
> fixes in STATUS for backport I feel we have enough to
> warrant 1.0.2. It will also keep us excercised at doing
> releases ;).
I've no objection to 1.0.2 happening soon, if you (or someone) are
willing to drive the process. Unfortunately, in the next few weeks I
wouldn't be able to help much with reviewing and voting. I suspect
this may be true of the other Chicago developers too, though don't
want to put words in their mouths.
1.0.1's been pretty stable, and the diff to 1.0.2 wouldn't be that
huge, so I'm only +/-0.
(Btw, 1.0.2 would work with both Apache 2.0.48 and 2.0.49?)
Side issue:
In another thread, Justin said he didn't want to use any of the new
release procedures he and Ben are working on for 1.0.x release, rather
he would stick with the old release procedures for the 1.0.x line.
I think that's fine, as long as we have a 1.1.0-beta1, 1.1.0-beta2,
etc. In other words, there should be some chance to *test* the new
release procedures on real releases before 1.1.0 itself comes out.
That could happen with betaX releases leading up to 1.1.0, or it could
happen with 1.0.2.
I don't think it would be bad, per se, to use new release procedures
for 1.0.2. True, the goal of 1.0.x releases is to avoid instability,
but the current procedures have already caused instability in the
1.0.x releases :-), so the question is really one of relative risk.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org