Branching 1.5.x on 31/03

[David Anderson <da...@natulte.net>]

Hey,

Following the thread on dev@ and the thread on users@ asking our users
what we should do with 1.5, I propose we branch the 1.5.x release
branch at the end of this month.

For those who didn't follow the discussions, I just read through the
users@ thread, and this is what I think sums it up:
 - As can be expected, there are still a lot of people who want merge
tracking ASAP.
 - However, relatively few said that 1.5.0 should absolutely feature
merge tracking, no compromises. And those who did say that basically
just said they would skip 1.5 and bump to 1.6 when it comes out.
 - A good portion of replies express interest in getting the features
and bugfixes we have right now out immediately, rather than push it
all off until we get merge tracking done.
 - A few people remarked that getting the features we have now "out
there" is also good for merge tracking stabilization, as we will have
time to address bugs in these features before we release the merge
tracking behemoth, and could therefore focus more on merge tracking
for 1.6.

Personally speaking, I like the stabilization argument (MT is a big
enough code change as it is, let's try to get other code changes out
of the way), as well as catering to those who need stuff other than
merge tracking as soon as possible. I believe that, even if that means
we get 1.6 in 9 months rather than 1.5 in 6 months, it will be worth
it in terms of not having to manage feedback on MT and feedback on
many unrelated features.

So, with a release manager cap on, I propose to branch at the end of
March. That gives everyone a little over two weeks to wrap up features
before we branch. After that, tentative timeline would be a couple of
days to merge the late-coming patches, then an RC1 release. After
that, regular soak cycle until we get it out the door.

In that time, the CHANGES file needs to be updated. I'm willing to
tackle that, if the plan sounds good to you folks.

Thoughts?

- Dave

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

Re: Branching 1.5.x on 31/03

[Daniel Rall <dl...@collab.net>]

On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
...
> >> Strong +1 to branching 1.5.x in 2 weeks.
...
> Max,
> 
> I propose we use r24025 to branch 1.5, since nobody took the time to
> finish this discussion before merging MT to trunk...

I've seen only two committer +1's remain in favor of branching 1.5
now.  Majority support is in favor of completing the work on an
initial release of Merge Tracking, and finishing up the underlying
Sparse Directories framework.

If consensus did change, and an immediate 1.5 loomed, it should not
include the sparse-directories merge (instead, using r24024), as the
code from that branch still needs time to stabilize.  I've fixed at
least 5 show-stopper bugs since the merge, and some changes from
pending API discussions remain incomplete.  I'd prefer to see this
stabilization occur on trunk, concurrently to the last bits of Merge
Tracking development and stabilization, resulting in a truly
compelling 1.5.0 release.

Re: Branching 1.5.x on 31/03

[Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net>]

Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> Max,
> 
> I propose we use r24025 to branch 1.5, since nobody took the time to
> finish this discussion before merging MT to trunk...

I think with the merge of both sparse-directories and merge-tracking to
trunk, we have a strong implicit consensus _against_ an interim 1.5.

With both of these on trunk, I feel the end is more in sight than it was
before, so I'm going to fall into line with consensus, here.

Max.

Re: Branching 1.5.x on 31/03

[Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com>]

On 3/18/07, Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/18/07, Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net> wrote:
> > David Anderson wrote:
> > > Hey,
> > >
> > > Following the thread on dev@ and the thread on users@ asking our users
> > > what we should do with 1.5, I propose we branch the 1.5.x release
> > > branch at the end of this month.
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > - A few people remarked that getting the features we have now "out
> > > there" is also good for merge tracking stabilization, as we will have
> > > time to address bugs in these features before we release the merge
> > > tracking behemoth, and could therefore focus more on merge tracking
> > > for 1.6.
> > >
> > > Personally speaking, I like the stabilization argument (MT is a big
> > > enough code change as it is, let's try to get other code changes out
> > > of the way), as well as catering to those who need stuff other than
> > > merge tracking as soon as possible.
> >
> > Strong +1 to branching 1.5.x in 2 weeks.
> >
> > The presence of Cyrus SASL support alone justifies the release from a
> > feature POV, IMO, and the arguments regarding stabilization, quoted
> > above, feel very very right to me.
> >
> > I do not believe inserting an extra release cycle will slow down MT
> > development - even if all of the committers who have been working on MT,
> > remain focussed on MT, I think there's enough others of us to work on
> > the release engineering.
>
> Still the same feelings here!

Max,

I propose we use r24025 to branch 1.5, since nobody took the time to
finish this discussion before merging MT to trunk...

bye,

Erik.

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

Re: Branching 1.5.x on 31/03

[Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com>]

On 3/18/07, Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net> wrote:
> David Anderson wrote:
> > Hey,
> >
> > Following the thread on dev@ and the thread on users@ asking our users
> > what we should do with 1.5, I propose we branch the 1.5.x release
> > branch at the end of this month.
>
> ...
>
> > - A few people remarked that getting the features we have now "out
> > there" is also good for merge tracking stabilization, as we will have
> > time to address bugs in these features before we release the merge
> > tracking behemoth, and could therefore focus more on merge tracking
> > for 1.6.
> >
> > Personally speaking, I like the stabilization argument (MT is a big
> > enough code change as it is, let's try to get other code changes out
> > of the way), as well as catering to those who need stuff other than
> > merge tracking as soon as possible.
>
> Strong +1 to branching 1.5.x in 2 weeks.
>
> The presence of Cyrus SASL support alone justifies the release from a
> feature POV, IMO, and the arguments regarding stabilization, quoted
> above, feel very very right to me.
>
> I do not believe inserting an extra release cycle will slow down MT
> development - even if all of the committers who have been working on MT,
> remain focussed on MT, I think there's enough others of us to work on
> the release engineering.

Still the same feelings here!

+1 for 1.5(branching) in 2 weeks.

Next to SASL, there's also WebDAV mirrors...

I think its a good idea to release the cleaned up ra_dav separate from MT.


bye,

Erik.

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

Re: Branching 1.5.x on 31/03

[Max Bowsher <ma...@ukf.net>]

David Anderson wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> Following the thread on dev@ and the thread on users@ asking our users
> what we should do with 1.5, I propose we branch the 1.5.x release
> branch at the end of this month.

...

> - A few people remarked that getting the features we have now "out
> there" is also good for merge tracking stabilization, as we will have
> time to address bugs in these features before we release the merge
> tracking behemoth, and could therefore focus more on merge tracking
> for 1.6.
> 
> Personally speaking, I like the stabilization argument (MT is a big
> enough code change as it is, let's try to get other code changes out
> of the way), as well as catering to those who need stuff other than
> merge tracking as soon as possible.

Strong +1 to branching 1.5.x in 2 weeks.

The presence of Cyrus SASL support alone justifies the release from a
feature POV, IMO, and the arguments regarding stabilization, quoted
above, feel very very right to me.

I do not believe inserting an extra release cycle will slow down MT
development - even if all of the committers who have been working on MT,
remain focussed on MT, I think there's enough others of us to work on
the release engineering.

Max.

Re: Branching 1.5.x on 31/03

[Charles Woloszynski <ch...@innocon.com>]

+1 on waiting for merge tracking.

I think this is one of the biggest items for SVN and I don't  
personally (or corporately) need any of the other features in the  
proposed 1.5 collection.


On Mar 13, 2007, at 1:55 PM, eg wrote:

> David Anderson wrote:
>> Hey,
>> Following the thread on dev@ and the thread on users@ asking our  
>> users
>> what we should do with 1.5, I propose we branch the 1.5.x release
>> branch at the end of this month.
>> For those who didn't follow the discussions, I just read through the
>> users@ thread, and this is what I think sums it up:
>> - As can be expected, there are still a lot of people who want merge
>> tracking ASAP.
>> - However, relatively few said that 1.5.0 should absolutely feature
>> merge tracking, no compromises. And those who did say that basically
>> just said they would skip 1.5 and bump to 1.6 when it comes out.
>> - A good portion of replies express interest in getting the features
>> and bugfixes we have right now out immediately, rather than push it
>> all off until we get merge tracking done.
>> - A few people remarked that getting the features we have now "out
>> there" is also good for merge tracking stabilization, as we will have
>> time to address bugs in these features before we release the merge
>> tracking behemoth, and could therefore focus more on merge tracking
>> for 1.6.
>
> As of my count just now from the (gmane.comp.version- 
> control.subversion.users) newsgroup postings, the vote is:
>
> 18 in favor of releasing right now.
> 13 in favor of waiting for merge tracking.
>
> To be fair, some were a bit ambiguous.
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>

Charles Woloszynski
Innovative Concepts, Inc.
Sr. Director, Advanced Networking Systems

charles.woloszynski@innocon.com
(703) 893-2007 x506

Re: Branching 1.5.x on 31/03

[eg <eg...@gmail.com>]

David Anderson wrote:
> Hey,
> 
> Following the thread on dev@ and the thread on users@ asking our users
> what we should do with 1.5, I propose we branch the 1.5.x release
> branch at the end of this month.
> 
> For those who didn't follow the discussions, I just read through the
> users@ thread, and this is what I think sums it up:
> - As can be expected, there are still a lot of people who want merge
> tracking ASAP.
> - However, relatively few said that 1.5.0 should absolutely feature
> merge tracking, no compromises. And those who did say that basically
> just said they would skip 1.5 and bump to 1.6 when it comes out.
> - A good portion of replies express interest in getting the features
> and bugfixes we have right now out immediately, rather than push it
> all off until we get merge tracking done.
> - A few people remarked that getting the features we have now "out
> there" is also good for merge tracking stabilization, as we will have
> time to address bugs in these features before we release the merge
> tracking behemoth, and could therefore focus more on merge tracking
> for 1.6.

As of my count just now from the 
(gmane.comp.version-control.subversion.users) newsgroup postings, the 
vote is:

18 in favor of releasing right now.
13 in favor of waiting for merge tracking.

To be fair, some were a bit ambiguous.



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

Re: Branching 1.5.x on 31/03

[Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@red-bean.com>]

On 3/12/07, Giovanni Bajo <ra...@develer.com> wrote:
> On 12/03/2007 19.42, David Anderson wrote:
>
> > In that time, the CHANGES file needs to be updated. I'm willing to
> > tackle that, if the plan sounds good to you folks.
>
> Tangential to that, is there documentation ready for the new features? I'm
> mostly thinking of the Cyrus SASL stuff, that I think it means that most
> documentation about how to authenticate with SVN should be rehauled or at
> least updated.


As usual when we release, initial bare-bones docs go into the release
notes.  Eventually they get written up in more detail in the online
svnbook.

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

Re: Branching 1.5.x on 31/03

[Giovanni Bajo <ra...@develer.com>]

On 12/03/2007 19.42, David Anderson wrote:

> In that time, the CHANGES file needs to be updated. I'm willing to
> tackle that, if the plan sounds good to you folks.

Tangential to that, is there documentation ready for the new features? I'm 
mostly thinking of the Cyrus SASL stuff, that I think it means that most 
documentation about how to authenticate with SVN should be rehauled or at 
least updated.
-- 
Giovanni Bajo

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