On 2/28/17, Warren Young <war...@etr-usa.com> wrote: > > I wonder if you’d share what you plan to do with the SQLite repository? Are > you just going to roll to 2.0 immediately after release, and tell people who > want to check out the sources via Fossil to upgrade to Fossil 2.0?
The plan is to convert SQLite and Fossil itself over to 2.1 as soon as possible. In other words, start injecting SHA3 content right away. Details are still sketchy. My current thinking is that Fossil 2.1 servers will detect when a version 1.x client tries to sync or clone and will send by a polite message asking the user to upgrade their client. This seems like it will minimize inconvenience. And content will always be accessible through tarball and ZIP archive downloads, even if users do not want to upgrade their client. > > Have you decided on a backporting plan? That is, will the fossil-2.0 branch > be merged into trunk, and no Fossil 1 branch be created, or will Fossil 1 > live for some time after Fossil 2.0 is released, with fixes and possibly > features backported until some future cutoff date? The plan is to merge the fossil-2.0 branch back to trunk within days - as soon as I can get it completely implemented and do some high-level sanity checking. After the merge, I'm going to ask y'all in the community to do your best to break it. After some extensive testing, we can cut the 2.0 release, with the 2.1 release to follow at the same time or perhaps after a delay of a few days. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org _______________________________________________ fossil-dev mailing list fossil-dev@mailinglists.sqlite.org http://mailinglists.sqlite.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-dev
