At the hackathon last week we (Stefan Hett, Stefan Fuhrmann, Julian,
Bert and I) discussed how we could get releases out faster. We
exchanged ideas of how we could do "time-based releases", i.e. to
agree on a fixed schedule of doing releases, not waiting for
particular features or bugfixes (except
On 27.11.2017 14:52, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> I know this has been discussed before, but it was never made reality.
> On last week's hackathon we also didn't come to a full consensus on
> various details. But I think we should simply work out those details,
> hopefully come to some compromise, and
Branko Čibej writes:
>> I know this has been discussed before, but it was never made reality.
>> On last week's hackathon we also didn't come to a full consensus on
>> various details. But I think we should simply work out those details,
>> hopefully come to some compromise, and if so, JFD it.
>
On 28/11/2017 14:03, Evgeny Kotkov wrote:
> Branko Čibej writes:
>
>>> I know this has been discussed before, but it was never made reality.
>>> On last week's hackathon we also didn't come to a full consensus on
>>> various details. But I think we should simply work out those details,
>>> hopeful
On 28.11.2017 15:01, Stefan wrote:
> I'm also a bit worried about the acceptance of faster releases (i.e.
> once every 6 months). Maybe we'd simply send out a mail to maintainers
> polling for which time line they'd prefer (i.e. 6, 9, 12, 24 months for
> new releases)? Just for us to get some idea
On 28/11/2017 16:16, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 28.11.2017 15:01, Stefan wrote:
>> I'm also a bit worried about the acceptance of faster releases (i.e.
>> once every 6 months). Maybe we'd simply send out a mail to maintainers
>> polling for which time line they'd prefer (i.e. 6, 9, 12, 24 months for
On 28.11.2017 20:23, Stefan wrote:
> On 28/11/2017 16:16, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 28.11.2017 15:01, Stefan wrote:
>>> I'm also a bit worried about the acceptance of faster releases (i.e.
>>> once every 6 months). Maybe we'd simply send out a mail to maintainers
>>> polling for which time line the
On 28/11/2017 22:34, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 28.11.2017 20:23, Stefan wrote:
>> On 28/11/2017 16:16, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 28.11.2017 15:01, Stefan wrote:
I'm also a bit worried about the acceptance of faster releases (i.e.
once every 6 months). Maybe we'd simply send out a mail to
On 28.11.2017 23:25, Stefan wrote:
> On 28/11/2017 22:34, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 28.11.2017 20:23, Stefan wrote:
>>> On 28/11/2017 16:16, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 28.11.2017 15:01, Stefan wrote:
> I'm also a bit worried about the acceptance of faster releases (i.e.
> once every 6 mont
Branko Čibej wrote:
In the meantime, it appears that 1.8, 1.9 and 1.10 will all use the same
WC format (Julian? I hope stashes don't shatter that dream).
That's correct.
- Julian
So we're
pretty well covered in that respect. For now.
-- Brane
Great! I gather from the reactions in this thread that we have
consensus on the principle, we "just" need to do it :-). And figure
out some details.
- WC multiple format support: we're okay for now (1.8 - 1.10 have the
same format), but for 1.11 it would be good if we can make
better-pristines hap
On 01.12.2017 13:16, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> Great! I gather from the reactions in this thread that we have
> consensus on the principle, we "just" need to do it :-). And figure
> out some details.
Will that be Subversion 18.04 Anticlimactic Albatross?
-- Brane
6 month
2 year LTS
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:38 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 01.12.2017 13:16, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> > Great! I gather from the reactions in this thread that we have
> > consensus on the principle, we "just" need to do it :-). And figure
> > out some details.
>
> Will that be S
On Dec 1, 2017, at 5:38 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> On 01.12.2017 13:16, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> Great! I gather from the reactions in this thread that we have
>> consensus on the principle, we "just" need to do it :-). And figure
>> out some details.
>
> Will that be Subversion 18.04 Anticli
On Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 7:13 PM, Nathan Hartman wrote:
> On Dec 1, 2017, at 5:38 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>
>>> On 01.12.2017 13:16, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>>> Great! I gather from the reactions in this thread that we have
>>> consensus on the principle, we "just" need to do it :-). And figure
>>>
15 matches
Mail list logo