You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> on 2008/03/07 00:34:54 UTC
Ready for RC1
I'd like to begin the discussion on when we will be ready for RC1. I
think we should do it soon. There are no specific fixes/features that
anyone is working for in 1.5, we are basically just waiting for users
to find and report bugs. If we release an RC1 we will get more users
using it and we can get more feedback which gets us to GA. This
alpha/beta process would be fine if we knew we had specific work left
to do, but I do not see where that is the case.
I am not proposing we roll a tarball this weekend. Just that we come
up with the end plan to get there.
These are the things I think need to be done to get to RC1. All could
be done relatively quickly.
1) Propose any remaining items for backport. I went through all the
un-proposed changes in trunk (merge tracking makes this easy) and
picked out the ones that MAYBE we want to propose.
http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=135809
The original author should probably make the proposal. That would be
(cmpilato, glasser, joe orton, kfogel).
2) Vote on these items (and existing proposals) and get them merged to
the branch.
3) Finish the work on the CHANGES file. Karl has taken this on and
seems to be making progress.
4) Finish the work on the release notes. I know that Hyrum started
this. I am sure there is more to do.
I think we should do these items and move on to the RC1 process. If
you disagree with this, then just please explain why, and even better
please list the things that you think need to happen to get us to RC1.
Please be as specific as possible. I will do whatever I can to drum
up the resources necessary to make these things happen (assuming there
is consensus they need to be done).
We have made great progress towards the release and I just want to
keep things moving. If there are still some things that have to be
done, I would like to see them identified so that I have a chance to
help knock them off the list and get this release finalized. I am not
proposing we go GA before this is ready or that we sidestep any of our
procedures. I just want to help get us to the finish line as fast as
possible so we can get on with our plans for the future. I also
happen to think the current software is looking really good.
--
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: Ready for RC1
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:33 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> Nothing major to add here; just a note that I'm working on an outstanding
> bug in svnmerge-migrate-history.py. Should be wrapping that up tomorrow.
I meant to note in that list of backports that we should probably
backport your svnsync filtering code to 1.5. I'd also like to see us
condition it with an environment variable instead of requiring a
recompile. Just a thought though. Maybe we could call it something
like:
SVNSYNC_UNSUPPORTED_STRIP_MERGEINFO
SVNSYNC_UNSUPPORTED_CONVERT_SVNMERGE
Something like that?
--
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: Ready for RC1
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Nothing major to add here; just a note that I'm working on an outstanding
bug in svnmerge-migrate-history.py. Should be wrapping that up tomorrow.
Mark Phippard wrote:
> I'd like to begin the discussion on when we will be ready for RC1. I
> think we should do it soon. There are no specific fixes/features that
> anyone is working for in 1.5, we are basically just waiting for users
> to find and report bugs. If we release an RC1 we will get more users
> using it and we can get more feedback which gets us to GA. This
> alpha/beta process would be fine if we knew we had specific work left
> to do, but I do not see where that is the case.
>
> I am not proposing we roll a tarball this weekend. Just that we come
> up with the end plan to get there.
>
> These are the things I think need to be done to get to RC1. All could
> be done relatively quickly.
>
> 1) Propose any remaining items for backport. I went through all the
> un-proposed changes in trunk (merge tracking makes this easy) and
> picked out the ones that MAYBE we want to propose.
>
> http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=135809
>
> The original author should probably make the proposal. That would be
> (cmpilato, glasser, joe orton, kfogel).
>
> 2) Vote on these items (and existing proposals) and get them merged to
> the branch.
>
> 3) Finish the work on the CHANGES file. Karl has taken this on and
> seems to be making progress.
>
> 4) Finish the work on the release notes. I know that Hyrum started
> this. I am sure there is more to do.
>
> I think we should do these items and move on to the RC1 process. If
> you disagree with this, then just please explain why, and even better
> please list the things that you think need to happen to get us to RC1.
> Please be as specific as possible. I will do whatever I can to drum
> up the resources necessary to make these things happen (assuming there
> is consensus they need to be done).
>
> We have made great progress towards the release and I just want to
> keep things moving. If there are still some things that have to be
> done, I would like to see them identified so that I have a chance to
> help knock them off the list and get this release finalized. I am not
> proposing we go GA before this is ready or that we sidestep any of our
> procedures. I just want to help get us to the finish line as fast as
> possible so we can get on with our plans for the future. I also
> happen to think the current software is looking really good.
>
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: Ready for RC1
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Mar 8, 2008 at 1:20 PM, Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think we should do these items and move on to the RC1 process. If
> > you disagree with this, then just please explain why, and even better
> > please list the things that you think need to happen to get us to RC1.
> > Please be as specific as possible. I will do whatever I can to drum
> > up the resources necessary to make these things happen (assuming there
> > is consensus they need to be done).
>
> RC implies to me that we can make *no* more substantive changes and
> that we as a community feel it is 1.5.0 except for last-minute
> thinkos. In my opinion, we're simply not there yet. We need to give
> a little more time for feedback from folks before we go off
> half-cocked. Perhaps a 'beta' is the next step, but I also think
> overloading folks with too frequent releases is a bad thing because
> we're creating too much of a moving target. We should let each
> release sit for ~2 weeks to give folks a real chance to play with it
> rather than constantly spinning out 'alpha1', 'alpha2', etc. So, in
> other words, we should be patient and not be overly aggressive. --
I am not sure we are disagreeing. I am just saying that I think our
next release should be RC1 and not an alpha3. We do not have any
specific development tasks we are working on so we are at the point we
should be getting community feedback. Declaring the next release RC1
is the best way to get that.
Alpha1 was rolled on 2/21 and alpha2 was released to the public on
2/29. So we are essentially only 8-9 days in. I was suggesting we do
the necessary backports work, get the CHANGES, release notes etc ready
so that when we get to that 14-20 day point we can do the RC1. If
some stuff comes up that is creating some new work then we could call
it Beta instead or hold it a little longer. I do not think we are
being overly aggressive. We branch about 40 days ago. SVN 1.2 issued
RC1 3 days after we branched. Tossing out that release the other
three post-1.0 releases were 48, 41 and 57 days. So I think this is
the time to be talking about and to start the process rolling. If we
made the tarballs this week, say Thursday, by the time it was actually
released it would be around 50 days since the branch.
--
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: Ready for RC1
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we should do these items and move on to the RC1 process. If
> you disagree with this, then just please explain why, and even better
> please list the things that you think need to happen to get us to RC1.
> Please be as specific as possible. I will do whatever I can to drum
> up the resources necessary to make these things happen (assuming there
> is consensus they need to be done).
RC implies to me that we can make *no* more substantive changes and
that we as a community feel it is 1.5.0 except for last-minute
thinkos. In my opinion, we're simply not there yet. We need to give
a little more time for feedback from folks before we go off
half-cocked. Perhaps a 'beta' is the next step, but I also think
overloading folks with too frequent releases is a bad thing because
we're creating too much of a moving target. We should let each
release sit for ~2 weeks to give folks a real chance to play with it
rather than constantly spinning out 'alpha1', 'alpha2', etc. So, in
other words, we should be patient and not be overly aggressive. --
justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Ready for RC1
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>Mark Phippard wrote:
>> > I'd like to begin the discussion on when we will be ready for RC1. I
[...]
>>
>> I want to be sure we feel comfortable releasing something as 1.5.0
>> before we start calling it a release candidate. That should be the
>> litmus test. If the code currently in 1.5.x troubles people, we should
>> call it a beta.
>
> Well, my point was that if the code in 1.5.x troubles people we need
> to get those troubles listed and out in the open so that we can
> address them, otherwise we will never release. I think the best way
> to feel comfortable is to have our users use the software and give us
> feedback, and the best way to make that happen is to get to RC1.
I think you are right that we need to push for a Release Candidate very soon,
because as you observed before we have slowed right down on feature coding and
it seems like the Alpha release may not be getting enough serious evaluation.
At the same time, I would like us to take two other approaches to evaluating
our readiness for a full release: (1) Review and document each major feature at
a high level in terms of completeness, expectation management, traps for the
unwary, whether we can see a smooth upgrade path for it in v1.6, etc. and (2)
API review. I'm starting separate threads about these.
These reviews should not delay preparing a release candidate, they are just
additional quality checks that can be ongoing during the release process.
>> [On a philosophical note, I don't see myself as the guy who dictates
>> /when/ we release, so much as the guy who pushes the button to get the
>> release process rolling when we do decide to do a release (alpha, beta,
>> rc, whatever). I prefer the "when" question be answered by the
>> community. I try not to appear too dictatorial in declaring goals for
>> rolling releases; I'm just helping give people a target to shoot toward
>> for backports.]
>
> I think you are doing great, I do not think anyone thinks you have
> been heavy-handed.
Yes, indeed, Hyrum: you've been doing just what we need.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Ready for RC1
Posted by Stefan Küng <to...@gmail.com>.
Mark Phippard wrote:
>> One issue that was reported about a merge:
>> when specifying revisions like this "1234,1240-1237,1390", the merge
>> actually is done in that order (first 1234, then 1240-1237, then 1390),
>> which is not what the user expected.
>> I haven't had the time to check, but last time I tried that (ok, I admit
>> that was some time ago), Subversion 'sorted' the revisions before doing
>> the merge. So that means that I either have read the docs wrong and I
>> have to sort the revisions myself first before calling the API, or
>> there's a bug in svn - my guess is the first (that's why I haven't
>> reported it yet - I like to check first myself).
>
> In your example, wouldn't you expect them to merge in that order
> anyway? Did you write it backwards? Anyway, I recall bringing this
> up and people felt it ought to merge in the order you give it and not
> try to "outthink" you. In the merge client we built, we resequence
> the revisions so that it merges the oldest ones first.
That's why I haven't reported it :)
I thought that I had to reorder the revisions myself in TSVN first. I'll
fix this sometimes this weekend.
Stefan
--
___
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
Re: Ready for RC1
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Stefan Küng <to...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mark Phippard wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> Well, my point was that if the code in 1.5.x troubles people we need
> >> > to get those troubles listed and out in the open so that we can
> >> > address them, otherwise we will never release. I think the best way
> >> > to feel comfortable is to have our users use the software and give us
> >> > feedback, and the best way to make that happen is to get to RC1.
> >>
> >> Did we get any feedback from the alpha releases? (anywhere? IRC, dev@, users@?)
> >
> > There has been a little feedback on openCollabNet. Nothing major,
> > just questions and stuff. One person reported a pre-existing problem
> > that Mike Pilato fixed when merging between different repositories. I
> > have seen some 1.5 questions on users@ but have not read and do not
> > know if they are actually using it.
> >
> > TortoiseSVN has been doing 1.5 nightlies for a long time and has an
> > active user community. Stefan, have you heard any feedback from your
> > users? The feedback we have gotten from Subclipse users has just been
> > about Subclipse questions.
>
> We had some feedback for the alpha release, but mostly that was about
> people not understanding the new features or specifically about TSVN.
>
> One issue that was reported about a merge:
> when specifying revisions like this "1234,1240-1237,1390", the merge
> actually is done in that order (first 1234, then 1240-1237, then 1390),
> which is not what the user expected.
> I haven't had the time to check, but last time I tried that (ok, I admit
> that was some time ago), Subversion 'sorted' the revisions before doing
> the merge. So that means that I either have read the docs wrong and I
> have to sort the revisions myself first before calling the API, or
> there's a bug in svn - my guess is the first (that's why I haven't
> reported it yet - I like to check first myself).
In your example, wouldn't you expect them to merge in that order
anyway? Did you write it backwards? Anyway, I recall bringing this
up and people felt it ought to merge in the order you give it and not
try to "outthink" you. In the merge client we built, we resequence
the revisions so that it merges the oldest ones first.
--
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: Ready for RC1
Posted by Stefan Küng <to...@gmail.com>.
Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Well, my point was that if the code in 1.5.x troubles people we need
>> > to get those troubles listed and out in the open so that we can
>> > address them, otherwise we will never release. I think the best way
>> > to feel comfortable is to have our users use the software and give us
>> > feedback, and the best way to make that happen is to get to RC1.
>>
>> Did we get any feedback from the alpha releases? (anywhere? IRC, dev@, users@?)
>
> There has been a little feedback on openCollabNet. Nothing major,
> just questions and stuff. One person reported a pre-existing problem
> that Mike Pilato fixed when merging between different repositories. I
> have seen some 1.5 questions on users@ but have not read and do not
> know if they are actually using it.
>
> TortoiseSVN has been doing 1.5 nightlies for a long time and has an
> active user community. Stefan, have you heard any feedback from your
> users? The feedback we have gotten from Subclipse users has just been
> about Subclipse questions.
We had some feedback for the alpha release, but mostly that was about
people not understanding the new features or specifically about TSVN.
One issue that was reported about a merge:
when specifying revisions like this "1234,1240-1237,1390", the merge
actually is done in that order (first 1234, then 1240-1237, then 1390),
which is not what the user expected.
I haven't had the time to check, but last time I tried that (ok, I admit
that was some time ago), Subversion 'sorted' the revisions before doing
the merge. So that means that I either have read the docs wrong and I
have to sort the revisions myself first before calling the API, or
there's a bug in svn - my guess is the first (that's why I haven't
reported it yet - I like to check first myself).
Stefan
--
___
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
Re: Ready for RC1
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Mar 7, 2008 at 7:50 AM, Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, my point was that if the code in 1.5.x troubles people we need
> > to get those troubles listed and out in the open so that we can
> > address them, otherwise we will never release. I think the best way
> > to feel comfortable is to have our users use the software and give us
> > feedback, and the best way to make that happen is to get to RC1.
>
> Did we get any feedback from the alpha releases? (anywhere? IRC, dev@, users@?)
There has been a little feedback on openCollabNet. Nothing major,
just questions and stuff. One person reported a pre-existing problem
that Mike Pilato fixed when merging between different repositories. I
have seen some 1.5 questions on users@ but have not read and do not
know if they are actually using it.
TortoiseSVN has been doing 1.5 nightlies for a long time and has an
active user community. Stefan, have you heard any feedback from your
users? The feedback we have gotten from Subclipse users has just been
about Subclipse questions.
--
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: Ready for RC1
Posted by Erik Huelsmann <eh...@gmail.com>.
> Well, my point was that if the code in 1.5.x troubles people we need
> to get those troubles listed and out in the open so that we can
> address them, otherwise we will never release. I think the best way
> to feel comfortable is to have our users use the software and give us
> feedback, and the best way to make that happen is to get to RC1.
Did we get any feedback from the alpha releases? (anywhere? IRC, dev@, users@?)
> > [On a philosophical note, I don't see myself as the guy who dictates
> > /when/ we release, so much as the guy who pushes the button to get the
> > release process rolling when we do decide to do a release (alpha, beta,
> > rc, whatever). I prefer the "when" question be answered by the
> > community. I try not to appear too dictatorial in declaring goals for
> > rolling releases; I'm just helping give people a target to shoot toward
> > for backports.]
>
> I think you are doing great, I do not think anyone thinks you have
> been heavy-handed.
Bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Ready for RC1
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 10:38 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
> > I'd like to begin the discussion on when we will be ready for RC1. I
> > think we should do it soon. There are no specific fixes/features that
> > anyone is working for in 1.5, we are basically just waiting for users
> > to find and report bugs. If we release an RC1 we will get more users
> > using it and we can get more feedback which gets us to GA. This
> > alpha/beta process would be fine if we knew we had specific work left
> > to do, but I do not see where that is the case.
>
> I want to be sure we feel comfortable releasing something as 1.5.0
> before we start calling it a release candidate. That should be the
> litmus test. If the code currently in 1.5.x troubles people, we should
> call it a beta.
Well, my point was that if the code in 1.5.x troubles people we need
to get those troubles listed and out in the open so that we can
address them, otherwise we will never release. I think the best way
to feel comfortable is to have our users use the software and give us
feedback, and the best way to make that happen is to get to RC1.
> [On a philosophical note, I don't see myself as the guy who dictates
> /when/ we release, so much as the guy who pushes the button to get the
> release process rolling when we do decide to do a release (alpha, beta,
> rc, whatever). I prefer the "when" question be answered by the
> community. I try not to appear too dictatorial in declaring goals for
> rolling releases; I'm just helping give people a target to shoot toward
> for backports.]
I think you are doing great, I do not think anyone thinks you have
been heavy-handed.
--
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: Ready for RC1
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
Mark Phippard wrote:
> I'd like to begin the discussion on when we will be ready for RC1. I
> think we should do it soon. There are no specific fixes/features that
> anyone is working for in 1.5, we are basically just waiting for users
> to find and report bugs. If we release an RC1 we will get more users
> using it and we can get more feedback which gets us to GA. This
> alpha/beta process would be fine if we knew we had specific work left
> to do, but I do not see where that is the case.
I want to be sure we feel comfortable releasing something as 1.5.0
before we start calling it a release candidate. That should be the
litmus test. If the code currently in 1.5.x troubles people, we should
call it a beta.
The other consideration is that once we go to RC, we've agreed that the
full stabilization voting rules go into effect. That shouldn't be a
problem, but if we think there will still be a fair amount of
backporting, we may want to hold off on an RC just yet. (Then again, if
we think there may be a fair amount of backporting, perhaps we shouldn't
be releasing it as an RC....)
> I am not proposing we roll a tarball this weekend. Just that we come
> up with the end plan to get there.
I'm fine with not rolling an alpha this weekend, and waiting until
STATUS shrinks a bit before rolling a beta or rc.
[On a philosophical note, I don't see myself as the guy who dictates
/when/ we release, so much as the guy who pushes the button to get the
release process rolling when we do decide to do a release (alpha, beta,
rc, whatever). I prefer the "when" question be answered by the
community. I try not to appear too dictatorial in declaring goals for
rolling releases; I'm just helping give people a target to shoot toward
for backports.]
> These are the things I think need to be done to get to RC1. All could
> be done relatively quickly.
>
> 1) Propose any remaining items for backport. I went through all the
> un-proposed changes in trunk (merge tracking makes this easy) and
> picked out the ones that MAYBE we want to propose.
>
> http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=135809
>
> The original author should probably make the proposal. That would be
> (cmpilato, glasser, joe orton, kfogel).
>
> 2) Vote on these items (and existing proposals) and get them merged to
> the branch.
>
> 3) Finish the work on the CHANGES file. Karl has taken this on and
> seems to be making progress.
>
> 4) Finish the work on the release notes. I know that Hyrum started
> this. I am sure there is more to do.
I'm not trying to put words in his mouth, but according to
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-03/0131.shtml Karl also plans on
finishing up the Release Notes.
> I think we should do these items and move on to the RC1 process. If
> you disagree with this, then just please explain why, and even better
> please list the things that you think need to happen to get us to RC1.
> Please be as specific as possible. I will do whatever I can to drum
> up the resources necessary to make these things happen (assuming there
> is consensus they need to be done).
>
> We have made great progress towards the release and I just want to
> keep things moving. If there are still some things that have to be
> done, I would like to see them identified so that I have a chance to
> help knock them off the list and get this release finalized. I am not
> proposing we go GA before this is ready or that we sidestep any of our
> procedures. I just want to help get us to the finish line as fast as
> possible so we can get on with our plans for the future. I also
> happen to think the current software is looking really good.
So do I. :)
-Hyrum