You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Simon Large <si...@skirridsystems.co.uk> on 2005/11/14 11:42:15 UTC
Is 1.3.0RC2 officially released yet?
Hi folks,
I see 1.3.0RC2 was tagged some time ago and collecting signatures, but
there has been no announcement yet, and no entry on the download page so
I presume the 4 week soak period has not yet started. Many people are
asking about the ASP_DOT_NET_HACK feature on the TSVN list, and I would
like to give them a rough estimate as to when it will be available. Does
mid-to-late December sound about right?
BTW the project status page still says 1.3.0 is due in October, 1.4.0 in
January.
Simon
--
___
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest Interface to (Sub)Version Control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Is 1.3.0RC2 officially released yet?
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On 15 Nov 2005 09:26:35 -0600, kfogel@collab.net <kf...@collab.net> wrote:
> It's not the number of changes, it's their nature. If the changes to
> 1.3.x since RC2 are not for severe bugs, then they could wait until
> 1.3.1, and there would be no need for RC3. But if they are for severe
> bugs, then an RC3 would be needed.
>
> Here are the significant changes merged into 1.3.x since RC2 was
> rolled from r17100. Do any seem worthy of an RC3 to us?
>
> * r17157 [merge of r17150]
> Fix a bug that caused anonymous write access over ra_svn to fail
> with "Authorization failed" errors.
This fixes a regression from 1.2.x.
> * r17161 [merge of r17149]
> Remove the possibility of a buffer overflow in keyword expansion.
This fixes a client side crash with overly long keywords.
> * r17350 [merge of r17214]
> Fix crashes caused by reentrant calls into the Java bindings, and
> closing an initialisation-time race condition.
This fixes a bug that caused Subclipse to crash when trying to use our
new ASP_DOT_NET_HACK stuff.
Those three alone seem like enough to justify an rc3 to me.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Is 1.3.0RC2 officially released yet?
Posted by David James <ja...@gmail.com>.
On 15 Nov 2005 09:26:35 -0600, kfogel@collab.net <kf...@collab.net> wrote:
> Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> writes:
> > I believe it has not yet been officially released. Considering the
> > number of changes that have gone in to 1.3.x post rc2, I would suspect
> > a rc3 release sometime soon, so mid-to-late december seems pretty
> > likely to me.
>
> It's not the number of changes, it's their nature. If the changes to
> 1.3.x since RC2 are not for severe bugs, then they could wait until
> 1.3.1, and there would be no need for RC3. But if they are for severe
> bugs, then an RC3 would be needed.
[...]
> * r17297 [merge of r17257]
> Emit a workaround for bugs in SWIG 1.3.25 and earlier which cause
> SWIG_GetModule to be called with the wrong number of arguments.
r17257 is necessary in order for our SWIG bindings to compile with GCC
2.9x, so I consider it to be an important fix. For this fix alone, I
believe it is worth rolling RC3.
r17279, which removes recursive symbolic links from our build tree, is
also an important fix. r17279 prevents Python from recursively
importing modules, such that "libsvn.core" imports
"libsvn.libsvn.core", and "libsvn.libsvn.core" imports
"libsvn.libsvn.libsvn.core", and so on. Besides this, recursive
symbolic links also break "scp", thus making it difficult for
developers to copy the Subversion build tree from one machine to
another. I think it would be a very good idea to include this fix in
1.3.0.
Cheers,
David
--
David James -- http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~james
Re: Is 1.3.0RC2 officially released yet?
Posted by John Peacock <jp...@rowman.com>.
kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> * r17161 [merge of r17149]
> Remove the possibility of a buffer overflow in keyword expansion.
This may be a minor overflow (in that it would only be as long as the
keyword itself, and hence hard to exploit), but it is an overflow and
should be fixed ASAP.
+1 on a RC3...
John
--
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard
Suite H
Lanham, MD 20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5748
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Is 1.3.0RC2 officially released yet?
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Malcolm Rowe <ma...@farside.org.uk> writes:
> True, we could just rename RC2 to final and be done with it. Trouble is,
> we haven't released any 1.3.x RC publically yet, so we haven't got to
> the point of being able to evaluate any feedback, much less exited the
> soak period (or does the A.B.0 soak period start when we cut the RC
> rather than when we release it?).
Soak period starts when we officially release the RC, that is, after
the RC has enough signatures to be released (even as just an RC).
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Is 1.3.0RC2 officially released yet?
Posted by Malcolm Rowe <ma...@farside.org.uk>.
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:26:35AM -0600, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> writes:
> > I believe it has not yet been officially released. Considering the
> > number of changes that have gone in to 1.3.x post rc2, I would suspect
> > a rc3 release sometime soon, so mid-to-late december seems pretty
> > likely to me.
>
> It's not the number of changes, it's their nature. If the changes to
> 1.3.x since RC2 are not for severe bugs, then they could wait until
> 1.3.1, and there would be no need for RC3. But if they are for severe
> bugs, then an RC3 would be needed.
>
True, we could just rename RC2 to final and be done with it. Trouble is,
we haven't released any 1.3.x RC publically yet, so we haven't got to
the point of being able to evaluate any feedback, much less exited the
soak period (or does the A.B.0 soak period start when we cut the RC
rather than when we release it?).
> Here are the significant changes merged into 1.3.x since RC2 was
> rolled from r17100. Do any seem worthy of an RC3 to us?
>
> * r17350 [merge of r17214]
> Fix crashes caused by reentrant calls into the Java bindings, and
> closing an initialisation-time race condition.
I don't know about the others, but I reviewed this one. It's a
significant, non-trivial change to the way the Java bindings work
internally, and a fix to a crash bug that should show up any time
you call back into the Java bindings as a result of a notification.
Fortunately, that doesn't appear too common, but Subclipse triggers it
(see http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2005-11/0225.shtml).
I'd prefer to see it in 1.3.0 rather than 1.3.1, but only because it
feels a little too complex to slip into a bugfix release. The Java
bindings are still usable without it.
Regards,
Malcolm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Is 1.3.0RC2 officially released yet?
Posted by kf...@collab.net.
Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net> writes:
> I believe it has not yet been officially released. Considering the
> number of changes that have gone in to 1.3.x post rc2, I would suspect
> a rc3 release sometime soon, so mid-to-late december seems pretty
> likely to me.
It's not the number of changes, it's their nature. If the changes to
1.3.x since RC2 are not for severe bugs, then they could wait until
1.3.1, and there would be no need for RC3. But if they are for severe
bugs, then an RC3 would be needed.
Here are the significant changes merged into 1.3.x since RC2 was
rolled from r17100. Do any seem worthy of an RC3 to us?
* r17116 [merge of r17115]
Tweak some text regarding the WC format change from r16855.
* r17120 [merge of r16360 - r17117]
Norwegian messages from trunk.
* r17135 [merge of r17131]
Fix some useless stat'ing and reading of property files on commits
* r17152 [merge of r17127]
Fix the JavaHL status API for retrieving last committed revision.
* r17153 [merge of r17129]
Fix broken tests in svnmerge_test.py by disabling keyword expansion
* r17155 [merge of r17039, r17051]
Fix issue #767, where commit used a temporary file in the current
working directory (thus interfering with commits in read-only
directories).
* r17157 [merge of r17150]
Fix a bug that caused anonymous write access over ra_svn to fail
with "Authorization failed" errors.
* r17161 [merge of r17149]
Remove the possibility of a buffer overflow in keyword expansion.
* r17229 [merge of r16568, r17123]
Make svn info not error out on paths that don't exist in future revs.
* r17297 [merge of r17257]
Emit a workaround for bugs in SWIG 1.3.25 and earlier which cause
SWIG_GetModule to be called with the wrong number of arguments.
* r17309 [merge of r17190, r17271]
Fix a bug in diffing schedule delete files.
* r17350 [merge of r17214]
Fix crashes caused by reentrant calls into the Java bindings, and
closing an initialisation-time race condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Is 1.3.0RC2 officially released yet?
Posted by Garrett Rooney <ro...@electricjellyfish.net>.
On 11/14/05, Simon Large <si...@skirridsystems.co.uk> wrote:
> I see 1.3.0RC2 was tagged some time ago and collecting signatures, but
> there has been no announcement yet, and no entry on the download page so
> I presume the 4 week soak period has not yet started. Many people are
> asking about the ASP_DOT_NET_HACK feature on the TSVN list, and I would
> like to give them a rough estimate as to when it will be available. Does
> mid-to-late December sound about right?
I believe it has not yet been officially released. Considering the
number of changes that have gone in to 1.3.x post rc2, I would suspect
a rc3 release sometime soon, so mid-to-late december seems pretty
likely to me.
-garrett
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org