Re: Pristines-on-demand: OK to merge to trunk?

2022-05-05 Thread Daniel Sahlberg
Den tors 7 apr. 2022 kl 13:43 skrev Julian Foad : > TL;DR: are we OK to merge the pristines feature > ('pristines-on-demand-on-mwf' branch) to trunk soon, like early next week? > > As said in "A status review" [1] in the long thread "A two-part vision > for Subversion and large binary objects.", n

Re: Pristines-on-demand: OK to merge to trunk?

2022-04-17 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 12:43:03 +0100: > TL;DR: are we OK to merge the pristines feature > ('pristines-on-demand-on-mwf' branch) to trunk soon, like early next week? > > As said in "A status review" [1] in the long thread "A two-part vision > for Subversion and large binary obje

Re: Pristines-on-demand: OK to merge to trunk?

2022-04-07 Thread Julian Foad
Nathan Hartman wrote: > The branch worked for me when I last tested it and I saw no glaring > issues so I have no objections to merging it soon. That said, I would > encourage, if at all feasible, that we try to do two things first: > decouple the format 32 and pod525 feature, and decide what the >

Re: Pristines-on-demand: OK to merge to trunk?

2022-04-07 Thread Nathan Hartman
On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 7:43 AM Julian Foad wrote: > TL;DR: are we OK to merge the pristines feature > ('pristines-on-demand-on-mwf' branch) to trunk soon, like early next week? > > As said in "A status review" [1] in the long thread "A two-part vision > for Subversion and large binary objects.",

Pristines-on-demand: OK to merge to trunk?

2022-04-07 Thread Julian Foad
TL;DR: are we OK to merge the pristines feature ('pristines-on-demand-on-mwf' branch) to trunk soon, like early next week? As said in "A status review" [1] in the long thread "A two-part vision for Subversion and large binary objects.", next steps are reviewing and handling the outstanding issues,