> On 08/23/2011 08:17 AM, Bert Huijben wrote: > >> +1 to release as 1.7.0-RC1 as all tests pass for me. -0 to release as > >> Subversion 1.7.0 > > > > Ok, make that a -1 to release as Subversion 1.7.0 > > > > Subversion working copies that contain 'svn lock'-style locks can't be > > upgraded by our current upgrade code. (We are mixing two sqlite > > handles in the upgrade code and the code that inserts a lock checks if > > a node exists using a db handle that can't look inside the transaction > > of the other handle) > > > > I'm working on a fix and a regression test. (Should be fixed in a few > > hours) > > In IRC, it has been essentially agreed that rc1 is DOA per the bug reported > (and since fixed) above. The question then becomes, "What do we do with > RC1?" I've seen these suggestions: > > (1) Keep on truckin'. Release it as-is but with a note saying "By the way, > this > won't be the final release candidate. > > (2) Re-roll the thing with exactly the same content, and from the same magic > revision, except with the version tags reading "beta 4" instead of "release > candidate 1". > > (3) Dump the re-release, and focus on a "soon" rc2 instead. > > I'd like to register my preference for Option #3 > > Option #1 -- releasing a release candidate that's not a candidate for release > -- > just doesn't make any sense to me. > > Option #2 at least clears up the status of the release to better reflect what > we know about its lifetime, but I fear we will feel obligated to put some > "space" between this beta4 and our next real release candidate. This > "space" would further delay the soak period for the release. > > Option #3 doesn't have either of these problems, and -- if we scheduled it > for this Wednesday or Thursday -- gives us a little more time to address > Bert's > concerns (mentioned elsethread) that we haven't done proper justice to the > STATUS backport review process. [ I think that's really just secret code for > "Hey, nobody voted for my stuff!", but ... ;-) ]
I'm not sure why you guys would version a "release" and then skip it. The first release candidate that is "released" should be called RC1, no matter what revision it is built from. Your gonna confuse people. BOb > > My goals are simple: I seek to minimize the administrative overhead we > inflict on ourselves, minimize the number of publicized false starts our user > base sees, and minimize further unnecessary delay to the release cycle. > And maximize shareholder value! Oh, and have a pony! And cake ... that I > get to eat, too!! > > -- > C. Michael Pilato <[email protected]> > CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
