Re: Intentions for 1.11 release timing

2018-06-29 Thread Johan Corveleyn
On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 1:32 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > Can others approve or comment on this reduced plan please, especially those > who +1'd the previous statement ( http://svn.apache.org/r1834111 ) which I > now think was too onerous? > > Stefan Sperling wrote: >> I would prefer having just the

Re: svn commit: r1834628 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/patch_tests.py

2018-06-29 Thread Daniel Shahaf
julianf...@apache.org wrote on Thu, 28 Jun 2018 17:25 +: > +unidiff_patch += ['\ No newline at end of property\n'] The sequence will be a SyntaxError in a future version of Python: [[[ % curl https://docs.python.org/3/reference/lexical_analysis.html#literals | me Changed in version

API compatibility promises in light of biannual releases (was: Re: Intentions for 1.11 release timing)

2018-06-29 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 14:26:53 +0100: > Another angle on this: I interpret what we are doing as inserting extra > mini-feature-releases into the existing cycle, rather than compressing the > existing cycle to happen four times faster. I wonder what our API compatibility promise

Re: change release signature requirements?

2018-06-29 Thread Julian Foad
Stefan wrote: > new: > [...] Before a release is officially made public, it must receive > three +1 votes from members of the Subversion PMC. In addition, as a > matter of project policy, we require testing and signatures from at > least one PMC members on *each* of the major platforms we supp

Re: Intentions for 1.11 release timing

2018-06-29 Thread Branko Čibej
On 29.06.2018 13:32, Julian Foad wrote: > Can others approve or comment on this reduced plan please, especially those > who +1'd the previous statement ( http://svn.apache.org/r1834111 ) which I > now think was too onerous? > > Stefan Sperling wrote: >> I would prefer having just the minimum requ

Re: Intentions for 1.11 release timing

2018-06-29 Thread Julian Foad
Can others approve or comment on this reduced plan please, especially those who +1'd the previous statement ( http://svn.apache.org/r1834111 ) which I now think was too onerous? Stefan Sperling wrote: > I would prefer having just the minimum requirements we are going > to fullfill written down.

Re: Next stable releases

2018-06-29 Thread Julian Foad
Philip Martin wrote on 2018-06-05: > It's time to consider 1.9.8 and 1.10.1. I can prepare these releases. Please nominate/review/vote on backports. - Julian > 1.9.7 has issue 4722, the spurious SHA1 checksum fail during commit: > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/projects/SVN/issues/SVN-4722 >