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 2008/07/14 14:41:33 UTC
SVN 1.5.1 next week
Just a reminder to everyone. Hyrum had indicated he intends to roll
SVN 1.5.1 next week. We should try to get STATUS cleared out before
this week. It'd be good if we could run through all the tests on the
branch so that there are no surprises that causes us to burn a release
number next week.
I assume no work has gone into making svn mv not create mergeinfo if
it does not have to? I have not seen anything in STATUS that looks
like it has been fixed.
There are a lot of merge fixes nominated. These resolve most, if not
all, of the problems that keep us from being able to use merge in our
own repository. It'd be nice to get these into 1.5.1.
If I can merge these cleanly and all tests pass, are people OK with me
adding a +1 on those items? I cannot do much more review than 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: SVN 1.5.1 next week
Posted by Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Just a reminder to everyone. Hyrum had indicated he intends to roll
>>>> SVN 1.5.1 next week. We should try to get STATUS cleared out before
>>>> this week. It'd be good if we could run through all the tests on the
>>>> branch so that there are no surprises that causes us to burn a release
>>>> number next week.
>>>>
>>>> I assume no work has gone into making svn mv not create mergeinfo if
>>>> it does not have to?
>>>
>>> AFAIK nothing has been done on that yet.
>>>
>>>> I have not seen anything in STATUS that looks
>>>> like it has been fixed.
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of merge fixes nominated. These resolve most, if not
>>>> all, of the problems that keep us from being able to use merge in our
>>>> own repository. It'd be nice to get these into 1.5.1.
>>>>
>>>> If I can merge these
>>>
>>> Issue #3067 could really use a long look by someone familiar with the
>>> merge tracking code before going into 1.5.1.
>>
>> Yes, I'd likewise add that it seems to fix most of our problems so it
>> would be a shame if it does not get reviewed in time to make it into
>> 1.5.1.
>
> +1
>
>>>> cleanly and all tests pass, are people OK with me
>>>> adding a +1 on those items? I cannot do much more review than that.
>>>
>>> Before you try let me forewarn you that the many merge tracking
>>> related fixes (notably the issue #3157, #3199, #3174, and #3067
>>> groups) are very interdependent and backporting any single one of them
>>> varies in difficulty from difficult to basically impossible. I can
>>> put together a backport branch for these four issues together if that
>>> will help.
>>
>> I cannot really answer, but I do not see how they will get reviewed or
>> backported if they cannot be merged. Whether they should be combined
>> into one review branch, or multiple is what I cannot answer.
>
> If anyone who has dealt with this situation in the past has any words
> of wisdom please raise your hand!
>
> In the meantime I'll look again to see if there is some reasonable
> order these can be backported individually to facilitate review.
The #3157 and #3199 groups were backported today.
I created backport branches for the #3174 and #3067 groups at:
http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/branches/1.5.x-issue3174
http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/branches/1.5.x-issue3067
Hopefully this will lower the bar for review a bit.
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5.1 next week
Posted by Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:15 PM, Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Just a reminder to everyone. Hyrum had indicated he intends to roll
>>>>> SVN 1.5.1 next week. We should try to get STATUS cleared out before
>>>>> this week. It'd be good if we could run through all the tests on the
>>>>> branch so that there are no surprises that causes us to burn a release
>>>>> number next week.
>>>>>
>>>>> I assume no work has gone into making svn mv not create mergeinfo if
>>>>> it does not have to?
>>>>
>>>> AFAIK nothing has been done on that yet.
>>>>
>>>>> I have not seen anything in STATUS that looks
>>>>> like it has been fixed.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are a lot of merge fixes nominated. These resolve most, if not
>>>>> all, of the problems that keep us from being able to use merge in our
>>>>> own repository. It'd be nice to get these into 1.5.1.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I can merge these
>>>>
>>>> Issue #3067 could really use a long look by someone familiar with the
>>>> merge tracking code before going into 1.5.1.
>>>
>>> Yes, I'd likewise add that it seems to fix most of our problems so it
>>> would be a shame if it does not get reviewed in time to make it into
>>> 1.5.1.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>>>> cleanly and all tests pass, are people OK with me
>>>>> adding a +1 on those items? I cannot do much more review than that.
>>>>
>>>> Before you try let me forewarn you that the many merge tracking
>>>> related fixes (notably the issue #3157, #3199, #3174, and #3067
>>>> groups) are very interdependent and backporting any single one of them
>>>> varies in difficulty from difficult to basically impossible. I can
>>>> put together a backport branch for these four issues together if that
>>>> will help.
>>>
>>> I cannot really answer, but I do not see how they will get reviewed or
>>> backported if they cannot be merged. Whether they should be combined
>>> into one review branch, or multiple is what I cannot answer.
>>
>> If anyone who has dealt with this situation in the past has any words
>> of wisdom please raise your hand!
>>
>> In the meantime I'll look again to see if there is some reasonable
>> order these can be backported individually to facilitate review.
>
> A backport branch for the issue #3157 group is ready:
>
> http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/branches/1.5.x-issue3157
>
> Mark/C-Mike - Karl and I have already approved these changes, both of
> you previously reviewed all but the later additions r31391, r31398,
> and r31482. If you have chance to look at just those three changes we
> can get this group in.
Disregard that, Mike already voted for the 3157 (and 3199) groups a 15
minutes ago.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5.1 next week
Posted by Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Just a reminder to everyone. Hyrum had indicated he intends to roll
>>>> SVN 1.5.1 next week. We should try to get STATUS cleared out before
>>>> this week. It'd be good if we could run through all the tests on the
>>>> branch so that there are no surprises that causes us to burn a release
>>>> number next week.
>>>>
>>>> I assume no work has gone into making svn mv not create mergeinfo if
>>>> it does not have to?
>>>
>>> AFAIK nothing has been done on that yet.
>>>
>>>> I have not seen anything in STATUS that looks
>>>> like it has been fixed.
>>>>
>>>> There are a lot of merge fixes nominated. These resolve most, if not
>>>> all, of the problems that keep us from being able to use merge in our
>>>> own repository. It'd be nice to get these into 1.5.1.
>>>>
>>>> If I can merge these
>>>
>>> Issue #3067 could really use a long look by someone familiar with the
>>> merge tracking code before going into 1.5.1.
>>
>> Yes, I'd likewise add that it seems to fix most of our problems so it
>> would be a shame if it does not get reviewed in time to make it into
>> 1.5.1.
>
> +1
>
>>>> cleanly and all tests pass, are people OK with me
>>>> adding a +1 on those items? I cannot do much more review than that.
>>>
>>> Before you try let me forewarn you that the many merge tracking
>>> related fixes (notably the issue #3157, #3199, #3174, and #3067
>>> groups) are very interdependent and backporting any single one of them
>>> varies in difficulty from difficult to basically impossible. I can
>>> put together a backport branch for these four issues together if that
>>> will help.
>>
>> I cannot really answer, but I do not see how they will get reviewed or
>> backported if they cannot be merged. Whether they should be combined
>> into one review branch, or multiple is what I cannot answer.
>
> If anyone who has dealt with this situation in the past has any words
> of wisdom please raise your hand!
>
> In the meantime I'll look again to see if there is some reasonable
> order these can be backported individually to facilitate review.
A backport branch for the issue #3157 group is ready:
http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/branches/1.5.x-issue3157
Mark/C-Mike - Karl and I have already approved these changes, both of
you previously reviewed all but the later additions r31391, r31398,
and r31482. If you have chance to look at just those three changes we
can get this group in.
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5.1 next week
Posted by Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Just a reminder to everyone. Hyrum had indicated he intends to roll
>>> SVN 1.5.1 next week. We should try to get STATUS cleared out before
>>> this week. It'd be good if we could run through all the tests on the
>>> branch so that there are no surprises that causes us to burn a release
>>> number next week.
>>>
>>> I assume no work has gone into making svn mv not create mergeinfo if
>>> it does not have to?
>>
>> AFAIK nothing has been done on that yet.
>>
>>> I have not seen anything in STATUS that looks
>>> like it has been fixed.
>>>
>>> There are a lot of merge fixes nominated. These resolve most, if not
>>> all, of the problems that keep us from being able to use merge in our
>>> own repository. It'd be nice to get these into 1.5.1.
>>>
>>> If I can merge these
>>
>> Issue #3067 could really use a long look by someone familiar with the
>> merge tracking code before going into 1.5.1.
>
> Yes, I'd likewise add that it seems to fix most of our problems so it
> would be a shame if it does not get reviewed in time to make it into
> 1.5.1.
+1
>>> cleanly and all tests pass, are people OK with me
>>> adding a +1 on those items? I cannot do much more review than that.
>>
>> Before you try let me forewarn you that the many merge tracking
>> related fixes (notably the issue #3157, #3199, #3174, and #3067
>> groups) are very interdependent and backporting any single one of them
>> varies in difficulty from difficult to basically impossible. I can
>> put together a backport branch for these four issues together if that
>> will help.
>
> I cannot really answer, but I do not see how they will get reviewed or
> backported if they cannot be merged. Whether they should be combined
> into one review branch, or multiple is what I cannot answer.
If anyone who has dealt with this situation in the past has any words
of wisdom please raise your hand!
In the meantime I'll look again to see if there is some reasonable
order these can be backported individually to facilitate review.
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5.1 next week
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:55 AM, Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just a reminder to everyone. Hyrum had indicated he intends to roll
>> SVN 1.5.1 next week. We should try to get STATUS cleared out before
>> this week. It'd be good if we could run through all the tests on the
>> branch so that there are no surprises that causes us to burn a release
>> number next week.
>>
>> I assume no work has gone into making svn mv not create mergeinfo if
>> it does not have to?
>
> AFAIK nothing has been done on that yet.
>
>> I have not seen anything in STATUS that looks
>> like it has been fixed.
>>
>> There are a lot of merge fixes nominated. These resolve most, if not
>> all, of the problems that keep us from being able to use merge in our
>> own repository. It'd be nice to get these into 1.5.1.
>>
>> If I can merge these
>
> Issue #3067 could really use a long look by someone familiar with the
> merge tracking code before going into 1.5.1.
Yes, I'd likewise add that it seems to fix most of our problems so it
would be a shame if it does not get reviewed in time to make it into
1.5.1.
>> cleanly and all tests pass, are people OK with me
>> adding a +1 on those items? I cannot do much more review than that.
>
> Before you try let me forewarn you that the many merge tracking
> related fixes (notably the issue #3157, #3199, #3174, and #3067
> groups) are very interdependent and backporting any single one of them
> varies in difficulty from difficult to basically impossible. I can
> put together a backport branch for these four issues together if that
> will help.
I cannot really answer, but I do not see how they will get reviewed or
backported if they cannot be merged. Whether they should be combined
into one review branch, or multiple is what I cannot answer.
--
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: SVN 1.5.1 next week
Posted by Paul Burba <pt...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:41 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just a reminder to everyone. Hyrum had indicated he intends to roll
> SVN 1.5.1 next week. We should try to get STATUS cleared out before
> this week. It'd be good if we could run through all the tests on the
> branch so that there are no surprises that causes us to burn a release
> number next week.
>
> I assume no work has gone into making svn mv not create mergeinfo if
> it does not have to?
AFAIK nothing has been done on that yet.
> I have not seen anything in STATUS that looks
> like it has been fixed.
>
> There are a lot of merge fixes nominated. These resolve most, if not
> all, of the problems that keep us from being able to use merge in our
> own repository. It'd be nice to get these into 1.5.1.
>
> If I can merge these
Issue #3067 could really use a long look by someone familiar with the
merge tracking code before going into 1.5.1.
> cleanly and all tests pass, are people OK with me
> adding a +1 on those items? I cannot do much more review than that.
Before you try let me forewarn you that the many merge tracking
related fixes (notably the issue #3157, #3199, #3174, and #3067
groups) are very interdependent and backporting any single one of them
varies in difficulty from difficult to basically impossible. I can
put together a backport branch for these four issues together if that
will help.
Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5.1 next week
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
Mark Phippard wrote:
> Just a reminder to everyone. Hyrum had indicated he intends to roll
> SVN 1.5.1 next week. We should try to get STATUS cleared out before
> this week. It'd be good if we could run through all the tests on the
> branch so that there are no surprises that causes us to burn a release
> number next week.
>
> I assume no work has gone into making svn mv not create mergeinfo if
> it does not have to? I have not seen anything in STATUS that looks
> like it has been fixed.
>
> There are a lot of merge fixes nominated. These resolve most, if not
> all, of the problems that keep us from being able to use merge in our
> own repository. It'd be nice to get these into 1.5.1.
>
> If I can merge these cleanly and all tests pass, are people OK with me
> adding a +1 on those items? I cannot do much more review than that.
I'm planning on rolling the release the evening of the 23rd, next
Wednesday. I've been trying to keep CHANGES up-to-date with the merges
to 1.5.x, but I'd appreciate another pair of eyes to double check it.
-Hyrum
Re: SVN 1.5.1 next week
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Mark Phippard wrote:
> I assume no work has gone into making svn mv not create mergeinfo if
> it does not have to? I have not seen anything in STATUS that looks
> like it has been fixed.
Sorry, haven't been able to focus time here yet.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: SVN 1.5.1 next week
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com>.
"Mark Phippard" <ma...@gmail.com> writes:
> If I can merge these cleanly and all tests pass, are people OK with me
> adding a +1 on those items? I cannot do much more review than that.
I think we've long held that "+1" means one has actually reviewed the
change and found it okay. A change shouldn't even be listed if it
doesn't pass the tests (and anyway, we'd catch that in regular testing).
Not that I mean to discourage testing: if you want to merge+test and
then add something to the "Notes:" section describing your results,
that's always useful! But I don't think we should make +1 mean less
than we intended it to mean. (I agree it sucks that these big
merge-tracking changes are so hard to review, though :-( ).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org