You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> on 2008/03/12 06:46:29 UTC
Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Hi all.
I've been a bit out of the loop for the past few days, but it looks like
STATUS is pretty empty, and has been for a while. If there aren't any
objections, I'd like to roll *beta* 1 tomorrow evening.
I know some people may feel we should call this an RC, and if that's
what folks want it's fine by me. I personally feel that we still have a
couple of unresolved issues ('log -g', for instance) which warrant
calling this a beta, rather than an RC.
Anyway, please get your fixes into 1.5.x by Wednesday evening [it'll be
late, I'm on the (US) West Coast right now.]
-Hyrum
Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:24 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
>> Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> > Hi all.
>> >
>> > I've been a bit out of the loop for the past few days, but it looks like
>> > STATUS is pretty empty, and has been for a while. If there aren't any
>> > objections, I'd like to roll *beta* 1 tomorrow evening.
>> >
>> > I know some people may feel we should call this an RC, and if that's
>> > what folks want it's fine by me. I personally feel that we still have a
>> > couple of unresolved issues ('log -g', for instance) which warrant
>> > calling this a beta, rather than an RC.
>> >
>> > Anyway, please get your fixes into 1.5.x by Wednesday evening [it'll be
>> > late, I'm on the (US) West Coast right now.]
>>
>> If I can't fix issue 3118, I too will oppose the notion of this being an RC.
>> I'm debugging as fast as I can!
>
> I think waiting for known issues that are actively being worked on
> makes sense. I would just rather see us roll an RC later this week or
> next week, then do a Beta now and an RC in another 3 or more weeks. I
> do not think we will get the benefits from the Beta to warrant it.
>
> AFAIK, the only known issues being worked on for 1.5 are the issue you
> mentioned and the log -g problems that have been posted to the mailing
> list. I say we get these fixed, however long it takes, and then do an
> RC.
Sounds good.
-Hyrum
Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 9:24 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
>
> Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> > Hi all.
> >
> > I've been a bit out of the loop for the past few days, but it looks like
> > STATUS is pretty empty, and has been for a while. If there aren't any
> > objections, I'd like to roll *beta* 1 tomorrow evening.
> >
> > I know some people may feel we should call this an RC, and if that's
> > what folks want it's fine by me. I personally feel that we still have a
> > couple of unresolved issues ('log -g', for instance) which warrant
> > calling this a beta, rather than an RC.
> >
> > Anyway, please get your fixes into 1.5.x by Wednesday evening [it'll be
> > late, I'm on the (US) West Coast right now.]
>
> If I can't fix issue 3118, I too will oppose the notion of this being an RC.
> I'm debugging as fast as I can!
I think waiting for known issues that are actively being worked on
makes sense. I would just rather see us roll an RC later this week or
next week, then do a Beta now and an RC in another 3 or more weeks. I
do not think we will get the benefits from the Beta to warrant it.
AFAIK, the only known issues being worked on for 1.5 are the issue you
mentioned and the log -g problems that have been posted to the mailing
list. I say we get these fixed, however long it takes, and then do an
RC.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> Hi all.
>
> I've been a bit out of the loop for the past few days, but it looks like
> STATUS is pretty empty, and has been for a while. If there aren't any
> objections, I'd like to roll *beta* 1 tomorrow evening.
>
> I know some people may feel we should call this an RC, and if that's
> what folks want it's fine by me. I personally feel that we still have a
> couple of unresolved issues ('log -g', for instance) which warrant
> calling this a beta, rather than an RC.
>
> Anyway, please get your fixes into 1.5.x by Wednesday evening [it'll be
> late, I'm on the (US) West Coast right now.]
If I can't fix issue 3118, I too will oppose the notion of this being an RC.
I'm debugging as fast as I can!
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 11:36 AM, David Glasser
<gl...@davidglasser.net> wrote:
> > I think 'beta' is the way to go. I know Mark Phippard will kill me :-),
> > but a beta is likely to attract a lot of attention, and on a release
> > this big, it's worth having one before we go into the (implied)
> > stability of an RC.
>
> Agreed. A release candidate should be a release candidate: it should
> be something that has all the ingredients for a release, and just
> needs to be shaken out a little. We're not quite there yet.
I will just save time and reply to both of you.
I am just asking you both (really everyone) to think of this a little
more objectively. Why are we not ready yet? Why does this not have
the stability we need? If we are not ready, it ought to be more than
a feeling. What is the list of things that has to be done in order to
be ready. I think we are just wasting time thinking some bug report
might arrive that will have made this idling worth it. We have never
issued an RC1 before that did not have some bugs. IMO, the current
code has all the qualities of an RC. I am not ashamed at all of the
code as it exists today, and I do think it is of release quality.
People are free to disagree with me, but I would just like our policy
to be driven by something other than a gut feeling or fear of a bug.
If we are not ready for RC than I for one want to see a list of what
we have to get done so that we are ready. I do not think that is a
lot to ask. cmpilato, pburba, julian and myself will all be in
California next week. If there are some things to do I'd like to know
so we can talk about who can look into them and help keep things
moving.
By every time-based standard we have set for ourselves in the past, we
would have either already released an RC by now, or would at least be
putting the absolute finishing touches on it. I think we are ready
(the two known issues I mentioned not-withstanding).
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@red-bean.com>.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com> wrote:
> The most important place to do this is the release notes. The book
> should also do it a bit, but that has to be carefully worded because
> some of those missing features will be implemented during the time the
> book is still in print.
I've tried to do this in chapter 4, but I'd very much love feedback
from anyone who has time to do a 'casual read' of the chapter, from
the point of view of a novice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com>.
"C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net> writes:
> O'Reilly has been *incredibly* patient through this whole process, and
> the business folk there actually understand the complications. We've
> told them that we hope to have a basically-ready-to-go drop of the
> book sources a couple of weeks after RC1 is released, and they're
> totally cool with that. So, not only is editing during "beta" not a
> problem, it's strongly encouraged. In fact, I was hoping soon to put
> out a call to the svn-dev and book-dev communities for help in
> validating the book from a technical standpoint. (It has already gone
> through the first pass of copyediting with O'Reilly, so we'd like to
> reduce unnecessary -- e.g. stylistic -- diffs.)
Okay. I'll try to take a look at chapter 4 too, once the CHANGES and
release notes are done.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Karl Fogel wrote:
> "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net> writes:
>> Nah, the book claims to document a particular pegged release of
>> Subversion. If the printed work goes stale once 1.6 is released
>> ... well, that's just the way those things go. We still have the
>> online version which can be kept as up-to-date as possible.
>
> Is there currently reasonably clear notice in the book about elements of
> merge-tracking that a) some users might expect, but b) are not yet
> there, and c) are likely to be there in the future? That's mainly what
> I'm worried about. I haven't had a chance to look yet, though.
I can't speak to that, having not had the chance to digest Ben's work yet.
>> Don't get me wrong -- I'd *love* the help in ensuring that Subversion
>> 1.5.0 is properly documented in the book text, *especially* since Ben,
>> Fitz and I are dancing with O'Reilly right now, trying to release a
>> printed document as close to the 1.5.0 release date as possible. But
>> that added requirement would be new to this release, and is not (in my
>> opinion) something that we-the-Subversion-devs should necessarily
>> assume as a blocker of this release.
>
> Hmmm. If we edit this while Subversion 1.5 is in beta, does that change
> the dance with O'Reilly?
O'Reilly has been *incredibly* patient through this whole process, and the
business folk there actually understand the complications. We've told them
that we hope to have a basically-ready-to-go drop of the book sources a
couple of weeks after RC1 is released, and they're totally cool with that.
So, not only is editing during "beta" not a problem, it's strongly
encouraged. In fact, I was hoping soon to put out a call to the svn-dev and
book-dev communities for help in validating the book from a technical
standpoint. (It has already gone through the first pass of copyediting with
O'Reilly, so we'd like to reduce unnecessary -- e.g. stylistic -- diffs.)
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com>.
"C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net> writes:
> Nah, the book claims to document a particular pegged release of
> Subversion. If the printed work goes stale once 1.6 is released
> ... well, that's just the way those things go. We still have the
> online version which can be kept as up-to-date as possible.
Is there currently reasonably clear notice in the book about elements of
merge-tracking that a) some users might expect, but b) are not yet
there, and c) are likely to be there in the future? That's mainly what
I'm worried about. I haven't had a chance to look yet, though.
I understand about what promises the book makes and doesn't make. But
my point isn't about fulfilling the literal terms of a contract with
readers, it's about what's best for Subversion. This will be the first
new print edition since 1.0; it's going to be widely read, and how it
communicates merge tracking will be very influential, I think.
> Don't get me wrong -- I'd *love* the help in ensuring that Subversion
> 1.5.0 is properly documented in the book text, *especially* since Ben,
> Fitz and I are dancing with O'Reilly right now, trying to release a
> printed document as close to the 1.5.0 release date as possible. But
> that added requirement would be new to this release, and is not (in my
> opinion) something that we-the-Subversion-devs should necessarily
> assume as a blocker of this release.
Hmmm. If we edit this while Subversion 1.5 is in beta, does that change
the dance with O'Reilly?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Karl Fogel wrote:
> Specifically, I think we are lacking appropriate expectation management
> on merge tracking. It's not enough to document what it does; we must
> also document what it *doesn't* do (yet) that people might be expecting
> it to do.
>
> The most important place to do this is the release notes. The book
> should also do it a bit, but that has to be carefully worded because
> some of those missing features will be implemented during the time the
> book is still in print.
Nah, the book claims to document a particular pegged release of Subversion.
If the printed work goes stale once 1.6 is released ... well, that's just
the way those things go. We still have the online version which can be kept
as up-to-date as possible.
The dev community has not felt compelled to help the book authors ensure
that our text was up-to-date and relevant for any of Subversion's recent
prior releases. Our 1.2 version was tagged 12 months after the release of
Subversion 1.2.0. Our 1.4 version trailed Subversion 1.4.0 by 11 months.
And we never even did a 1.3 version.
Don't get me wrong -- I'd *love* the help in ensuring that Subversion 1.5.0
is properly documented in the book text, *especially* since Ben, Fitz and I
are dancing with O'Reilly right now, trying to release a printed document as
close to the 1.5.0 release date as possible. But that added requirement
would be new to this release, and is not (in my opinion) something that
we-the-Subversion-devs should necessarily assume as a blocker of this release.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com>.
"Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
> Okay. Given all the back-and-forth on this topic, I get the feeling
> that we aren't quite ready for an RC, but that another pre-release
> would be useful at this point. I'm currently planning to roll a beta
> this evening, barring any compelling reason not to.
Excellent.
I think we can assume this is the last non-RC; the next thing will be RC1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
Karl Fogel wrote:
> "Mark Phippard" <ma...@gmail.com> writes:
>> My only objection to a Beta is if it is going to lead to some
>> conversation a week from now that says we cannot do an RC because we
>> just issued a Beta and we need to give it some time, and not create
>> tester fatigue etc. If that is the case, then let's just do what
>> needs to be done for RC. I do not want to wait another 3+ weeks for
>> an RC when I think we are essentially ready now, or could be shortly.
>
> I think we should release RC as soon as the docs are ready and the XFail
> sweep is done...
>
>> This always gets discounted, not sure why, but if we issue a beta it
>> also means we are going to be eating up our own resources putting it
>> out there instead of finalizing on the RC. We have the time it takes
>> to gather signatures and the process of updating tigris with all of
>> the release information. These things add up.
>
> ... whether we should issue a Beta in the meantime is a resource
> question, in some ways. I think it would be worth it, as it will get
> more attention than alphas do. But I don't think it needs to affect
> when the RC goes it.
Okay. Given all the back-and-forth on this topic, I get the feeling
that we aren't quite ready for an RC, but that another pre-release would
be useful at this point. I'm currently planning to roll a beta this
evening, barring any compelling reason not to.
-Hyrum
Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com>.
"Mark Phippard" <ma...@gmail.com> writes:
> My only objection to a Beta is if it is going to lead to some
> conversation a week from now that says we cannot do an RC because we
> just issued a Beta and we need to give it some time, and not create
> tester fatigue etc. If that is the case, then let's just do what
> needs to be done for RC. I do not want to wait another 3+ weeks for
> an RC when I think we are essentially ready now, or could be shortly.
I think we should release RC as soon as the docs are ready and the XFail
sweep is done...
> This always gets discounted, not sure why, but if we issue a beta it
> also means we are going to be eating up our own resources putting it
> out there instead of finalizing on the RC. We have the time it takes
> to gather signatures and the process of updating tigris with all of
> the release information. These things add up.
... whether we should issue a Beta in the meantime is a resource
question, in some ways. I think it would be worth it, as it will get
more attention than alphas do. But I don't think it needs to affect
when the RC goes it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com> wrote:
> "Mark Phippard" <ma...@gmail.com> writes:
> > Finally, your first point was just about how we generally feel. All I
> > can say is that I do not see how we are ever going to feel better
> > other than proceeding towards release. If we just keep idling you are
> > not going to wake up one morning and just decide you feel like we are
> > ready. I do not think we would be running it for our own repository
> > if we did not feel comfortable that it represented an improvement over
> > 1.4.6.
>
> Agreed. But we do need to manage expectations, provide good docs, and
> check over those XFails. I can look at the Xfails after finishing the
> release notes, but it'd be great if someone could do it sooner...
>
> Anyway: let's have a beta out there while the above is going on!
My only objection to a Beta is if it is going to lead to some
conversation a week from now that says we cannot do an RC because we
just issued a Beta and we need to give it some time, and not create
tester fatigue etc. If that is the case, then let's just do what
needs to be done for RC. I do not want to wait another 3+ weeks for
an RC when I think we are essentially ready now, or could be shortly.
This always gets discounted, not sure why, but if we issue a beta it
also means we are going to be eating up our own resources putting it
out there instead of finalizing on the RC. We have the time it takes
to gather signatures and the process of updating tigris with all of
the release information. These things add up.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com>.
"Mark Phippard" <ma...@gmail.com> writes:
> glasser seems to be raising 3 main issues to consider before RC:
>
> 1) Documentation of new features
> 2) Issue tracker sweep
> 3) XFail sweep
>
> Documentation is always an issue, other than finishing the release
> notes I do not see where we are lacking though. Especially if we are
> comparing this to our previous releases. The book is in better shape
> for 1.5 then it has been for any of the other post-1.0 releases. What
> other documentation is needed and where do we put it? You have
> singled out merge tracking, but what about other new features? I
> guess we can always do better, but we need to hold up an RC for this?
Specifically, I think we are lacking appropriate expectation management
on merge tracking. It's not enough to document what it does; we must
also document what it *doesn't* do (yet) that people might be expecting
it to do.
The most important place to do this is the release notes. The book
should also do it a bit, but that has to be carefully worded because
some of those missing features will be implemented during the time the
book is still in print.
> Issue tracker sweep. Not sure if you have something specific in mind,
> but it sure seems like we have paid more attention to the issue
> tracker for this release than any other. What were you looking for us
> to do? AFAIK, we have done everything that has been mentioned on this
> list, but I could be overlooking some stuff.
This is done AFAIK. We're also doing a revisions sweep to make sure
CHANGES and the release notes are complete; I should be done with that
today, though (only 1000 revs to go, thanks to the efforts of the
'manyhands' crew over the last week!).
> Finally, your first point was just about how we generally feel. All I
> can say is that I do not see how we are ever going to feel better
> other than proceeding towards release. If we just keep idling you are
> not going to wake up one morning and just decide you feel like we are
> ready. I do not think we would be running it for our own repository
> if we did not feel comfortable that it represented an improvement over
> 1.4.6.
Agreed. But we do need to manage expectations, provide good docs, and
check over those XFails. I can look at the Xfails after finishing the
release notes, but it'd be great if someone could do it sooner...
Anyway: let's have a beta out there while the above is going on!
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
Copy this from IRC and responding:
<kfogel_> glasser: I think Mark Phippard has a point. What are our
specific concerns about beta vs rc?
<glasser> do we actually have realistic experience using it ourselves
yet, before trying to sell the world on it? merge tracking
specifically. like, documentation, HOWTOs, etc
<glasser> if "we have merge tracking" is supposed to be the big
selling point of 1.5, then throwing out a tarball as "releasable"
without giving anyone any idea how to use the new features is kind of
poor
<glasser> (also, how's the issue tracker sweep, and the XFail sweep
going? sorry, I've been a little distracted by working on our own
install instead of upstream)
<kfogel_> glasser: so, I think the fact that we haven't checked over
the documentation (book, release notes, etc) is a good point.
<glasser> The fact that CHANGES is mostly done helps
<kfogel_> I'm working on release notes now, and I *really* want to
make sure we present merge tracking in a way that manages expectations
well. (I've called it "[foundational]" in the CHANGES file, for
example, but we'll need to get more specific than that.
<glasser> But yeah. I think "release candidate" means "people who
like living on the bleeding edge should seriously consider installing
this and getting real-world experience, as long as they understand the
risks involved". And it's not fair to make that request of our users
if we aren't ready to educate them as to what they can actually do
Now my response:
glasser seems to be raising 3 main issues to consider before RC:
1) Documentation of new features
2) Issue tracker sweep
3) XFail sweep
Documentation is always an issue, other than finishing the release
notes I do not see where we are lacking though. Especially if we are
comparing this to our previous releases. The book is in better shape
for 1.5 then it has been for any of the other post-1.0 releases. What
other documentation is needed and where do we put it? You have
singled out merge tracking, but what about other new features? I
guess we can always do better, but we need to hold up an RC for this?
Issue tracker sweep. Not sure if you have something specific in mind,
but it sure seems like we have paid more attention to the issue
tracker for this release than any other. What were you looking for us
to do? AFAIK, we have done everything that has been mentioned on this
list, but I could be overlooking some stuff.
XFail sweep. This certainly seems a legitimate point and I do not
know the answer. I hope the situation there is not too bad though as
it seems like we are awfully late in the release process for this not
to have been raised by someone (not pointing the finger at you or
anyone).
Anyway, I think those are all good points. I happen to think we are
doing pretty well in these areas (with possible exception of XFail).
Perhaps these can serve as a good discussion point about readiness.
If so, I would just reiterate that we ought to have a specific list of
things we need to do so that we at least know when we are done and
ready.
Finally, your first point was just about how we generally feel. All I
can say is that I do not see how we are ever going to feel better
other than proceeding towards release. If we just keep idling you are
not going to wake up one morning and just decide you feel like we are
ready. I do not think we would be running it for our own repository
if we did not feel comfortable that it represented an improvement over
1.4.6.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Posted by David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net>.
On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com> wrote:
>
> "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
> > I've been a bit out of the loop for the past few days, but it looks
> > like STATUS is pretty empty, and has been for a while. If there
> > aren't any objections, I'd like to roll *beta* 1 tomorrow evening.
> >
> > I know some people may feel we should call this an RC, and if that's
> > what folks want it's fine by me. I personally feel that we still have
> > a couple of unresolved issues ('log -g', for instance) which warrant
> > calling this a beta, rather than an RC.
> >
> > Anyway, please get your fixes into 1.5.x by Wednesday evening [it'll
> > be late, I'm on the (US) West Coast right now.]
>
> I think 'beta' is the way to go. I know Mark Phippard will kill me :-),
> but a beta is likely to attract a lot of attention, and on a release
> this big, it's worth having one before we go into the (implied)
> stability of an RC.
Agreed. A release candidate should be a release candidate: it should
be something that has all the ingredients for a release, and just
needs to be shaken out a little. We're not quite there yet.
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Beta or RC by Wednesday evening
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com>.
"Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
> I've been a bit out of the loop for the past few days, but it looks
> like STATUS is pretty empty, and has been for a while. If there
> aren't any objections, I'd like to roll *beta* 1 tomorrow evening.
>
> I know some people may feel we should call this an RC, and if that's
> what folks want it's fine by me. I personally feel that we still have
> a couple of unresolved issues ('log -g', for instance) which warrant
> calling this a beta, rather than an RC.
>
> Anyway, please get your fixes into 1.5.x by Wednesday evening [it'll
> be late, I'm on the (US) West Coast right now.]
I think 'beta' is the way to go. I know Mark Phippard will kill me :-),
but a beta is likely to attract a lot of attention, and on a release
this big, it's worth having one before we go into the (implied)
stability of an RC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org