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 2008/11/03 17:35:59 UTC
Branching 1.6 this week?
The current plan is to branch Nov. 5, this Wednesday, two days away. I'm
currently not very optimistic that we are going to make that date, for the
following reasons:
* Loads of stuff in TODO-1.6
* Buildbot lit up like a Christmas tree (I can reproduce the 8 failing tests
locally, too.)
* A large number of XFAIL tests on trunk, mostly merge tests.
* A general feeling that despite our best efforts, another week may be needed.
I'm not heavily involved in much of the above (though I do plan on looking at
the FSFS problems in TODO-1.6), so I can't comment on whether they are minor
issues or will need extra time. As mentioned before, I'm willing to push back
the branch date a bit, but I feel a bit uneasy about going beyond Nov. 12.
Thoughts?
-Hyrum
Re: Branching 1.6 this week? (no, next week)
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Personally, I top post every now and then :-P
I see no problem with it. In many cases, I inline or bottom-post when
I'm referring to specific text in a quote. But if it is just a general
reply... bah. Top post.
Cheers,
-g
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> [ note that I've reflowed this conversation so it'd readable. Please bottom
> post in the future. Thanks! ]
>
> Mark Eichin wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
>> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>> Mark Eichin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
>>>> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>>> New official branch date: Nov. 12.
>>>>
>>>> Does that suggest that the "empty revision range" fix could get
>>>> included in 1.6, if I could get some one to look at it in the next
>>>> week?
>>>
>>> I'm not familiar with the specific fix you are referring to, but the
>>> basic gist of what gets into a release and what doesn't can be found here:
>>> http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#release-numbering
>>>
>>> Has the patch you refer to already been committed to trunk?
>>
>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/1170.shtml has the description,
>> suggested patch, and attached script to reproduce the problem by
>> creating a repository and doing some simple merges (subject: svn
>> mergeinfo bug with script to reproduce it (finally)! (was Re: empty
>> mergeinfo produced by svn_mergeinfo_inheritable))
>>
>> As far as release definitions go, I'd actually want to see it go in
>> 1.5.5 (since it breaks merges and was introduced in 1.5.0), but I
>> haven't gotten any responses (beyond another end user reporting that
>> they see the problem too...)
>
> You didn't answer my question, but I gather by your response that the patch
> isn't yet in trunk. At this point, it depends on if somebody finds the time to
> review the patch and commit the fix. With people working to get trunk in a
> branchable state, that might not happen for a while.
>
> However, if the patch is a bug fix, there's no problem with it going into the
> branch after it's created, so you've got some home. I'd wait a couple of weeks
> for things to settle down and then poke people again.
>
> -Hyrum
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Branching 1.6 this week? (no, next week)
Posted by Mark Eichin <ei...@gmail.com>.
Issue 3312 filed. http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3312
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Branching 1.6 this week? (no, next week)
Posted by Mark Eichin <ei...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Mark Eichin wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
>> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>> Mark Eichin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
>>>> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>>> Mark Eichin wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
>>>>>> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>> New official branch date: Nov. 12.
>>>>>> Does that suggest that the "empty revision range" fix could get
>>>>>> included in 1.6, if I could get some one to look at it in the next
>>>>>> week?
>>>>> I'm not familiar with the specific fix you are referring to, but the
>>>>> basic gist of what gets into a release and what doesn't can be found here:
>>>>> http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#release-numbering
>>>>>
>>>>> Has the patch you refer to already been committed to trunk?
>>>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/1170.shtml has the description,
>>>> suggested patch, and attached script to reproduce the problem by
>>>> creating a repository and doing some simple merges (subject: svn
>>>> mergeinfo bug with script to reproduce it (finally)! (was Re: empty
>>>> mergeinfo produced by svn_mergeinfo_inheritable))
>>>>
>>>> As far as release definitions go, I'd actually want to see it go in
>>>> 1.5.5 (since it breaks merges and was introduced in 1.5.0), but I
>>>> haven't gotten any responses (beyond another end user reporting that
>>>> they see the problem too...)
>>> You didn't answer my question, but I gather by your response that the patch
>>> isn't yet in trunk. At this point, it depends on if somebody finds the time to
>>> review the patch and commit the fix. With people working to get trunk in a
>>> branchable state, that might not happen for a while.
>>
>> Correct - it's not on trunk, and noone's apparently found the time to
>> even run the reproduction test script.
>>
>>> However, if the patch is a bug fix, there's no problem with it going into the
>>> branch after it's created, so you've got some home. I'd wait a couple of weeks
>>> for things to settle down and then poke people again.
>>
>> Ah, I hadn't realized this project didn't do "bugs before features".
>> Also, I figured that if the branch date was moving because
>> merge-related tests were failing on trunk anyway, that whoever was
>> working on that would probably be looking at the relevant code anyway,
>> so it might be a good time to get it reviewed (or at least looked at
>> enough to make a ticket out of it, I haven't even seen that much
>> triage...)
>
> Using your script, I can reproduce the problem using trunk, so I'd say go ahead
> and file an issue, marking it 1.6-consider.
Thank you! Will do.
> -Hyrum
>
>
--
_Mark_ <ei...@thok.org> <ei...@gmail.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Branching 1.6 this week? (no, next week)
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
Mark Eichin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> Mark Eichin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
>>> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>> Mark Eichin wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
>>>>> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> New official branch date: Nov. 12.
>>>>> Does that suggest that the "empty revision range" fix could get
>>>>> included in 1.6, if I could get some one to look at it in the next
>>>>> week?
>>>> I'm not familiar with the specific fix you are referring to, but the
>>>> basic gist of what gets into a release and what doesn't can be found here:
>>>> http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#release-numbering
>>>>
>>>> Has the patch you refer to already been committed to trunk?
>>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/1170.shtml has the description,
>>> suggested patch, and attached script to reproduce the problem by
>>> creating a repository and doing some simple merges (subject: svn
>>> mergeinfo bug with script to reproduce it (finally)! (was Re: empty
>>> mergeinfo produced by svn_mergeinfo_inheritable))
>>>
>>> As far as release definitions go, I'd actually want to see it go in
>>> 1.5.5 (since it breaks merges and was introduced in 1.5.0), but I
>>> haven't gotten any responses (beyond another end user reporting that
>>> they see the problem too...)
>> You didn't answer my question, but I gather by your response that the patch
>> isn't yet in trunk. At this point, it depends on if somebody finds the time to
>> review the patch and commit the fix. With people working to get trunk in a
>> branchable state, that might not happen for a while.
>
> Correct - it's not on trunk, and noone's apparently found the time to
> even run the reproduction test script.
>
>> However, if the patch is a bug fix, there's no problem with it going into the
>> branch after it's created, so you've got some home. I'd wait a couple of weeks
>> for things to settle down and then poke people again.
>
> Ah, I hadn't realized this project didn't do "bugs before features".
> Also, I figured that if the branch date was moving because
> merge-related tests were failing on trunk anyway, that whoever was
> working on that would probably be looking at the relevant code anyway,
> so it might be a good time to get it reviewed (or at least looked at
> enough to make a ticket out of it, I haven't even seen that much
> triage...)
Using your script, I can reproduce the problem using trunk, so I'd say go ahead
and file an issue, marking it 1.6-consider.
-Hyrum
Re: Branching 1.6 this week? (no, next week)
Posted by Mark Eichin <ei...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> [ note that I've reflowed this conversation so it'd readable. Please bottom
> post in the future. Thanks! ]
artifact of gmail, sorry
> Mark Eichin wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
>> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>> Mark Eichin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
>>>> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>>> New official branch date: Nov. 12.
>>>>
>>>> Does that suggest that the "empty revision range" fix could get
>>>> included in 1.6, if I could get some one to look at it in the next
>>>> week?
>>>
>>> I'm not familiar with the specific fix you are referring to, but the
>>> basic gist of what gets into a release and what doesn't can be found here:
>>> http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#release-numbering
>>>
>>> Has the patch you refer to already been committed to trunk?
>>
>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/1170.shtml has the description,
>> suggested patch, and attached script to reproduce the problem by
>> creating a repository and doing some simple merges (subject: svn
>> mergeinfo bug with script to reproduce it (finally)! (was Re: empty
>> mergeinfo produced by svn_mergeinfo_inheritable))
>>
>> As far as release definitions go, I'd actually want to see it go in
>> 1.5.5 (since it breaks merges and was introduced in 1.5.0), but I
>> haven't gotten any responses (beyond another end user reporting that
>> they see the problem too...)
>
> You didn't answer my question, but I gather by your response that the patch
> isn't yet in trunk. At this point, it depends on if somebody finds the time to
> review the patch and commit the fix. With people working to get trunk in a
> branchable state, that might not happen for a while.
Correct - it's not on trunk, and noone's apparently found the time to
even run the reproduction test script.
> However, if the patch is a bug fix, there's no problem with it going into the
> branch after it's created, so you've got some home. I'd wait a couple of weeks
> for things to settle down and then poke people again.
Ah, I hadn't realized this project didn't do "bugs before features".
Also, I figured that if the branch date was moving because
merge-related tests were failing on trunk anyway, that whoever was
working on that would probably be looking at the relevant code anyway,
so it might be a good time to get it reviewed (or at least looked at
enough to make a ticket out of it, I haven't even seen that much
triage...)
Thanks for the advice.
> -Hyrum
>
>
--
_Mark_ <ei...@thok.org> <ei...@gmail.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Branching 1.6 this week? (no, next week)
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
[ note that I've reflowed this conversation so it'd readable. Please bottom
post in the future. Thanks! ]
Mark Eichin wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> Mark Eichin wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
>>> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>> New official branch date: Nov. 12.
>>>
>>> Does that suggest that the "empty revision range" fix could get
>>> included in 1.6, if I could get some one to look at it in the next
>>> week?
>>
>> I'm not familiar with the specific fix you are referring to, but the
>> basic gist of what gets into a release and what doesn't can be found here:
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#release-numbering
>>
>> Has the patch you refer to already been committed to trunk?
>
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/1170.shtml has the description,
> suggested patch, and attached script to reproduce the problem by
> creating a repository and doing some simple merges (subject: svn
> mergeinfo bug with script to reproduce it (finally)! (was Re: empty
> mergeinfo produced by svn_mergeinfo_inheritable))
>
> As far as release definitions go, I'd actually want to see it go in
> 1.5.5 (since it breaks merges and was introduced in 1.5.0), but I
> haven't gotten any responses (beyond another end user reporting that
> they see the problem too...)
You didn't answer my question, but I gather by your response that the patch
isn't yet in trunk. At this point, it depends on if somebody finds the time to
review the patch and commit the fix. With people working to get trunk in a
branchable state, that might not happen for a while.
However, if the patch is a bug fix, there's no problem with it going into the
branch after it's created, so you've got some home. I'd wait a couple of weeks
for things to settle down and then poke people again.
-Hyrum
Re: Branching 1.6 this week? (no, next week)
Posted by Mark Eichin <ei...@gmail.com>.
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/1170.shtml has the description,
suggested patch, and attached script to reproduce the problem by
creating a repository and doing some simple merges (subject: svn
mergeinfo bug with script to reproduce it (finally)! (was Re: empty
mergeinfo produced by svn_mergeinfo_inheritable))
As far as release definitions go, I'd actually want to see it go in
1.5.5 (since it breaks merges and was introduced in 1.5.0), but I
haven't gotten any responses (beyond another end user reporting that
they see the problem too...)
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Mark Eichin wrote:
>> Does that suggest that the "empty revision range" fix could get
>> included in 1.6, if I could get some one to look at it in the next
>> week?
>
> I'm not familiar with the specific fix you are referring to, but the basic gist
> of what gets into a release and what doesn't can be found here:
> http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#release-numbering
>
> Has the patch you refer to already been committed to trunk?
>
> -Hyrum
>
>> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
>> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>> Karl Fogel wrote:
>>>> "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>>>>> The current plan is to branch Nov. 5, this Wednesday, two days away. I'm
>>>>> currently not very optimistic that we are going to make that date, for the
>>>>> following reasons:
>>>>>
>>>>> * Loads of stuff in TODO-1.6
>>>>> * Buildbot lit up like a Christmas tree (I can reproduce the 8 failing tests
>>>>> locally, too.)
>>>>> * A large number of XFAIL tests on trunk, mostly merge tests.
>>>>> * A general feeling that despite our best efforts, another week may be needed.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not heavily involved in much of the above (though I do plan on looking at
>>>>> the FSFS problems in TODO-1.6), so I can't comment on whether they are minor
>>>>> issues or will need extra time. As mentioned before, I'm willing to push back
>>>>> the branch date a bit, but I feel a bit uneasy about going beyond Nov. 12.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>> I think Nov. 12th would be great. I don't know about other U.S. devs,
>>>> but the election has certainly been a factor for me this week (was out
>>>> in Pennsylvania doing Obama canvassing, for example).
>>>>
>>>> The issue-2843-dev branch merge has been going okay. When I saw a bunch
>>>> of test failures on the branch, after bringing it up-to-date with trunk,
>>>> I worried it might be really broken. But now that I'm testing trunk I
>>>> think those test failures are probably actually from trunk, not the
>>>> branch. How, um, reassuring :-).
>>> Yeah, I think these concerns justify pushing the date back, as much as I hate to
>>> do it.
>>>
>>> New official branch date: Nov. 12.
>>>
>>> -Hyrum
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
--
_Mark_ <ei...@thok.org> <ei...@gmail.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Branching 1.6 this week? (no, next week)
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
Mark Eichin wrote:
> Does that suggest that the "empty revision range" fix could get
> included in 1.6, if I could get some one to look at it in the next
> week?
I'm not familiar with the specific fix you are referring to, but the basic gist
of what gets into a release and what doesn't can be found here:
http://subversion.tigris.org/hacking.html#release-numbering
Has the patch you refer to already been committed to trunk?
-Hyrum
> On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> Karl Fogel wrote:
>>> "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>>>> The current plan is to branch Nov. 5, this Wednesday, two days away. I'm
>>>> currently not very optimistic that we are going to make that date, for the
>>>> following reasons:
>>>>
>>>> * Loads of stuff in TODO-1.6
>>>> * Buildbot lit up like a Christmas tree (I can reproduce the 8 failing tests
>>>> locally, too.)
>>>> * A large number of XFAIL tests on trunk, mostly merge tests.
>>>> * A general feeling that despite our best efforts, another week may be needed.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not heavily involved in much of the above (though I do plan on looking at
>>>> the FSFS problems in TODO-1.6), so I can't comment on whether they are minor
>>>> issues or will need extra time. As mentioned before, I'm willing to push back
>>>> the branch date a bit, but I feel a bit uneasy about going beyond Nov. 12.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>> I think Nov. 12th would be great. I don't know about other U.S. devs,
>>> but the election has certainly been a factor for me this week (was out
>>> in Pennsylvania doing Obama canvassing, for example).
>>>
>>> The issue-2843-dev branch merge has been going okay. When I saw a bunch
>>> of test failures on the branch, after bringing it up-to-date with trunk,
>>> I worried it might be really broken. But now that I'm testing trunk I
>>> think those test failures are probably actually from trunk, not the
>>> branch. How, um, reassuring :-).
>> Yeah, I think these concerns justify pushing the date back, as much as I hate to
>> do it.
>>
>> New official branch date: Nov. 12.
>>
>> -Hyrum
>>
>>
>
>
>
Re: Branching 1.6 this week? (no, next week)
Posted by Mark Eichin <ei...@gmail.com>.
Does that suggest that the "empty revision range" fix could get
included in 1.6, if I could get some one to look at it in the next
week?
On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Karl Fogel wrote:
>> "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>>> The current plan is to branch Nov. 5, this Wednesday, two days away. I'm
>>> currently not very optimistic that we are going to make that date, for the
>>> following reasons:
>>>
>>> * Loads of stuff in TODO-1.6
>>> * Buildbot lit up like a Christmas tree (I can reproduce the 8 failing tests
>>> locally, too.)
>>> * A large number of XFAIL tests on trunk, mostly merge tests.
>>> * A general feeling that despite our best efforts, another week may be needed.
>>>
>>> I'm not heavily involved in much of the above (though I do plan on looking at
>>> the FSFS problems in TODO-1.6), so I can't comment on whether they are minor
>>> issues or will need extra time. As mentioned before, I'm willing to push back
>>> the branch date a bit, but I feel a bit uneasy about going beyond Nov. 12.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>> I think Nov. 12th would be great. I don't know about other U.S. devs,
>> but the election has certainly been a factor for me this week (was out
>> in Pennsylvania doing Obama canvassing, for example).
>>
>> The issue-2843-dev branch merge has been going okay. When I saw a bunch
>> of test failures on the branch, after bringing it up-to-date with trunk,
>> I worried it might be really broken. But now that I'm testing trunk I
>> think those test failures are probably actually from trunk, not the
>> branch. How, um, reassuring :-).
>
> Yeah, I think these concerns justify pushing the date back, as much as I hate to
> do it.
>
> New official branch date: Nov. 12.
>
> -Hyrum
>
>
--
_Mark_ <ei...@thok.org> <ei...@gmail.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Branching 1.6 this week? (no, next week)
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
Karl Fogel wrote:
> "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
>> The current plan is to branch Nov. 5, this Wednesday, two days away. I'm
>> currently not very optimistic that we are going to make that date, for the
>> following reasons:
>>
>> * Loads of stuff in TODO-1.6
>> * Buildbot lit up like a Christmas tree (I can reproduce the 8 failing tests
>> locally, too.)
>> * A large number of XFAIL tests on trunk, mostly merge tests.
>> * A general feeling that despite our best efforts, another week may be needed.
>>
>> I'm not heavily involved in much of the above (though I do plan on looking at
>> the FSFS problems in TODO-1.6), so I can't comment on whether they are minor
>> issues or will need extra time. As mentioned before, I'm willing to push back
>> the branch date a bit, but I feel a bit uneasy about going beyond Nov. 12.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
> I think Nov. 12th would be great. I don't know about other U.S. devs,
> but the election has certainly been a factor for me this week (was out
> in Pennsylvania doing Obama canvassing, for example).
>
> The issue-2843-dev branch merge has been going okay. When I saw a bunch
> of test failures on the branch, after bringing it up-to-date with trunk,
> I worried it might be really broken. But now that I'm testing trunk I
> think those test failures are probably actually from trunk, not the
> branch. How, um, reassuring :-).
Yeah, I think these concerns justify pushing the date back, as much as I hate to
do it.
New official branch date: Nov. 12.
-Hyrum
Re: Branching 1.6 this week?
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com>.
"Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> writes:
> The current plan is to branch Nov. 5, this Wednesday, two days away. I'm
> currently not very optimistic that we are going to make that date, for the
> following reasons:
>
> * Loads of stuff in TODO-1.6
> * Buildbot lit up like a Christmas tree (I can reproduce the 8 failing tests
> locally, too.)
> * A large number of XFAIL tests on trunk, mostly merge tests.
> * A general feeling that despite our best efforts, another week may be needed.
>
> I'm not heavily involved in much of the above (though I do plan on looking at
> the FSFS problems in TODO-1.6), so I can't comment on whether they are minor
> issues or will need extra time. As mentioned before, I'm willing to push back
> the branch date a bit, but I feel a bit uneasy about going beyond Nov. 12.
>
> Thoughts?
I think Nov. 12th would be great. I don't know about other U.S. devs,
but the election has certainly been a factor for me this week (was out
in Pennsylvania doing Obama canvassing, for example).
The issue-2843-dev branch merge has been going okay. When I saw a bunch
of test failures on the branch, after bringing it up-to-date with trunk,
I worried it might be really broken. But now that I'm testing trunk I
think those test failures are probably actually from trunk, not the
branch. How, um, reassuring :-).
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Branching 1.6 this week?
Posted by Ivan Zhakov <iv...@visualsvn.com>.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> The current plan is to branch Nov. 5, this Wednesday, two days away. I'm
> currently not very optimistic that we are going to make that date, for the
> following reasons:
>
> * Loads of stuff in TODO-1.6
> * Buildbot lit up like a Christmas tree (I can reproduce the 8 failing tests
> locally, too.)
> * A large number of XFAIL tests on trunk, mostly merge tests.
> * A general feeling that despite our best efforts, another week may be needed.
>
> I'm not heavily involved in much of the above (though I do plan on looking at
> the FSFS problems in TODO-1.6), so I can't comment on whether they are minor
> issues or will need extra time. As mentioned before, I'm willing to push back
> the branch date a bit, but I feel a bit uneasy about going beyond Nov. 12.
>
+1.
--
Ivan Zhakov
VisualSVN Team
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org