On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Bob Archer <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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.
We're going to confuse people if we *don't* skip RC1. Version numbers are cheap, and we've already labelled something (in both the repository and our own craniums) as RC1. If we create *another* RC1, every time somebody references an "RC1" we have to ask "which one?" That way lies madness.... -Hyrum -- uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy http://www.uberSVN.com/
