You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@subversion.apache.org by Pat Farrell <pf...@pfarrell.com> on 2010/02/17 02:05:16 UTC
Expected release date of RedBean for 1.6
Mike Dixon wrote:
> Incidentally, I really would recommend reading the latest version of
> the entire svn book, especially Chapter 4, Branching and Merging.
> This stuff changed a lot with 1.5 (and again with the tree conflict
> system in 1.6), and there is a lot of historical discussion that has
> gone into developing the currently-recommended best practices.
When will the 1.6 version, with all the "changed a lot" be part of the
public website?
Apparently the merge documentation as well as the merge feature set has
changed a lot.
If I'm using old best practices, I'd like to get smarter.
Re: Expected release date of RedBean for 1.6
Posted by Tyler Roscoe <ty...@cryptio.net>.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:49:15AM +0000, David Aldrich wrote:
> Currently, we are running svn client 1.6.9 against svn server 1.5.2.
> Will this combination support the "svn merge --record-only" method
> that you described?
Yes.
tyler
Re: Expected release date of RedBean for 1.6
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 10:49:15AM +0000, David Aldrich wrote:
> Hi Stefan
>
> > I've added a new section to the book explaining how to keep
> > a branch alive after reintegration.
>
> Thanks very much for adding this new section. This method may well be
> useful to us. Currently, we are running svn client 1.6.9 against svn
> server 1.5.2. Will this combination support the "svn merge
> --record-only" method that you described?
Sure, I don't see why not. Note however that merge-tracking related
fixes have been made during virtually every release in both the 1.5.x
and 1.6.x lines, so you may want to upgrade anyway.
Also, 1.5.2 has a known security issue which was fixed in 1.5.7.
Stefan
RE: Expected release date of RedBean for 1.6
Posted by David Aldrich <Da...@EU.NEC.COM>.
Hi Stefan
> I've added a new section to the book explaining how to keep
> a branch alive after reintegration.
Thanks very much for adding this new section. This method may well be useful to us. Currently, we are running svn client 1.6.9 against svn server 1.5.2. Will this combination support the "svn merge --record-only" method that you described?
Best regards
David
Re: Expected release date of RedBean for 1.6
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 09:42:25PM -0500, Pat Farrell wrote:
> While SVN seems to have an active support community, I'm not seeing
> parallel evidence of active support for the documentation.
>
> for example, in another thread, Mike Dixon wrote:
> > Uh? What's wrong with --reintegrate?
>
> Well for me, the 1.5 RedBean documentation for --reintegrate
> is too vague to be useful.
>
> While I'm a pretty hard core geek, a bunch of the folks on my team are
> not. They need clear, up-to-date documentation.
Pat,
I've added a new section to the book explaining how to keep
a branch alive after reintegration. I'm not sure if this is what
you wanted documentation for (you were a bit, uhmmm... vague in
your request), but it's the number one question people usually
ask about reintegrate.
A new section called "Keeping a reintegrated branch alive" should appear
at the following URL once the book has been regenerated (which happens
automatically outside of my control):
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.branchmerge.advanced.html#svn.branchmerge.advanced.reintegratetwice
Please review this and let me know if it fits your bill.
Thanks,
Stefan
Re: Expected release date of RedBean for 1.6
Posted by Stefan Sperling <st...@elego.de>.
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:36:19AM -0500, Pat Farrell wrote:
> I've never yet found a good developer who is good at writing
> documentation. I've been doing this for nearly 40 years.
I do actually tend to like writing documentation sometimes.
No idea if it's really any good. But I've been contributing to
the book, and I sometimes commit changes to it after answering
questions from users which had trouble following some part of the book.
Unfortunately we have nobody dedicated to maintaining just the book
(apart from translators). It would be great to have one or more
regular contributors to the English version of the book who do not
also work on Subversion itself. You just qualified yourself for this
task, by the way (as well as any non-developers you happen to know who
are good at writing documentation).
> Again, the mainline release of SVN is packaged, and this list keep
> telling folks that they should be using 1.6 or even 1.6.9
>
> So why is it so hard to have the release process include the current
> "release" documentation.
I agree that the situation with the book being separate from the
svn distribution itself is a bit unfortunate. But this is how it is.
And the book is pretty large, actually. It used to be managed within
subversion's subversion repository but was spinned off into a separate
project. So it's a separate download, which may be inconvenient.
But you can't claim there wasn't any documentation matching the release.
If you'd rather like to have a set of man pages or something equally
suitable for distribution with subversion source releases, maybe you
could come up with a way of extracting the necessary text from the
book's docbook source and convert it? I'd like that.
> Are you guys just being dense?
Pardon?
> Its a trivial request: match the release
> documentation to the release software.
Well, the nightly version is always up to date (i.e. it matches the
current release). And it's available online for free.
If you need it in print, you can print it yourself. You can even make
derivative versions of it and self-publish them. There's been versions
published in China and Germany, for instance, which the Subversion
project itself didn't even know about before they were published.
And we're pretty cool with that.
Or you could ask o'reilly to publish a new version if you want the
cute turtles on the cover. I guess that cover is copyrighted by them.
So far, the "releases" of the book have coincided with o'reilly
publishing a new edition.
Stefan
Re: Expected release date of RedBean for 1.6
Posted by Pat Farrell <pf...@pfarrell.com>.
Ed wrote:
> It's a free book written mostly by those coding the project - check
> out the repo and keep yourself up to date with cron.
> I recommend the Vendor Branching feature. think of it as a teachable moment...
>
> strange how a version control project keeps it's book in a repo....
>
> no snivelling!
I've never yet found a good developer who is good at writing
documentation. I've been doing this for nearly 40 years.
Again, the mainline release of SVN is packaged, and this list keep
telling folks that they should be using 1.6 or even 1.6.9
So why is it so hard to have the release process include the current
"release" documentation.
Are you guys just being dense? Its a trivial request: match the release
documentation to the release software.
Re: Expected release date of RedBean for 1.6
Posted by Ed <SV...@0x1b.com>.
Pat,
It's a free book written mostly by those coding the project - check
out the repo and keep yourself up to date with cron.
I recommend the Vendor Branching feature. think of it as a teachable moment...
strange how a version control project keeps it's book in a repo....
no snivelling!
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Pat Farrell <pf...@pfarrell.com> wrote:
> Andy Levy wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 21:05, Pat Farrell <pf...@pfarrell.com> wrote:
>>> When will the 1.6 version, with all the "changed a lot" be part of the
>>> public website?
>>
>> It's always been accessible, use the "nightly" version of the
>> documentation. http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/index.html
>
> That is most definitely not what I asked.
>
> I have zero interest in pulling stuff from nightly SVN repositories.
> I am interested in production quality, ready to use in a professional
> development environment tools.
>
> While SVN seems to have an active support community, I'm not seeing
> parallel evidence of active support for the documentation.
>
> for example, in another thread, Mike Dixon wrote:
>> Uh? What's wrong with --reintegrate?
>
> Well for me, the 1.5 RedBean documentation for --reintegrate
> is too vague to be useful.
>
> While I'm a pretty hard core geek, a bunch of the folks on my team are
> not. They need clear, up-to-date documentation.
>
> --
> Pat Farrell
> http://www.pfarrell.com/
>
>
Re: Expected release date of RedBean for 1.6
Posted by Pat Farrell <pf...@pfarrell.com>.
Andy Levy wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 21:05, Pat Farrell <pf...@pfarrell.com> wrote:
>> When will the 1.6 version, with all the "changed a lot" be part of the
>> public website?
>
> It's always been accessible, use the "nightly" version of the
> documentation. http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/index.html
That is most definitely not what I asked.
I have zero interest in pulling stuff from nightly SVN repositories.
I am interested in production quality, ready to use in a professional
development environment tools.
While SVN seems to have an active support community, I'm not seeing
parallel evidence of active support for the documentation.
for example, in another thread, Mike Dixon wrote:
> Uh? What's wrong with --reintegrate?
Well for me, the 1.5 RedBean documentation for --reintegrate
is too vague to be useful.
While I'm a pretty hard core geek, a bunch of the folks on my team are
not. They need clear, up-to-date documentation.
--
Pat Farrell
http://www.pfarrell.com/
Re: Expected release date of RedBean for 1.6
Posted by Andy Levy <an...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 21:05, Pat Farrell <pf...@pfarrell.com> wrote:
> Mike Dixon wrote:
>> Incidentally, I really would recommend reading the latest version of
>> the entire svn book, especially Chapter 4, Branching and Merging.
>> This stuff changed a lot with 1.5 (and again with the tree conflict
>> system in 1.6), and there is a lot of historical discussion that has
>> gone into developing the currently-recommended best practices.
>
> When will the 1.6 version, with all the "changed a lot" be part of the
> public website?
It's always been accessible, use the "nightly" version of the
documentation. http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/index.html