On 02.04.2014 13:08, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On 1 April 2014 23:17, Ben Reser <[email protected]> wrote: >> It's proving to be impossible to move forward with the alpha2 release. >> >> Let's officially say that alpha and beta releases only require 3 votes >> (platform doesn't matter). This does not apply to release candidates. > Hi Ben, > > I'm against this release policy change: > 1. Good support of Windows platform is one of considerable advantages > of Subversion against other open-source version contol systems. > > Windows has very different behavior on things that Subversion relies > on: filename case-sensitivity, behavior of deleting/moving > files/directories with open handles and locked files. > > That's why 3+3 release policy is very important for Subversion project. > > 2. As I stated in the other thread, I personally is not confident > enough or do not see reasons to release 1.9.0 alpha in the current > state. That's why I haven't provided my signature for this release. > But it's not a good idea to change the policy if somebody have doubts > about the release. Note that most of the time we have Windows > signatures before Unix ones for 1.8.x releases. > > So given these reasons I'm -1 on proposed release policy change. > > Please understand me correctly: I'd like to see Subversion 1.9.0 ASAP, > but without trading off it's quality.
Eh, you're contradicting yourself. Releasing alphas is likely to improve the quality of the 1.9 release, not reduce it. An alpha is never considered to be stable and proven; that's why it's called alpha. Ben even said so in the release announcement; we all talked about this almost a year ago in Berlin (you were present, and I don't recall you objecting). An alpha is not a release candidate. It doesn't even impose a release date on us. Then why should we make it rock-solid, as long as it works well enough to be a useful preview for packagers, sysadmins and common-or-garden users? -- Brane -- Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion WANdisco // Non-Stop Data e. [email protected]
