On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Ben Reser <b...@reser.org> wrote: > Looking at our roadmap we have the following things still in progress: > > 1) local moves/renames. Based on the conversation I had on IRC this seems > to be not done yet due to issues found in the original plan. stsp says that > if it can't be done before we want to otherwise release 1.8 he'd like to > pull the move code entirely. So the question here is do we wait for some > unknown amount of time for this to complete? Is this an important 1.8 > feature? > > 2) Ev2. The notes say this is believed to be in a releasable state? Is > there any work needed to verify this? Do we need to remove the use of Ev2 > in any place to avoid releasing with compatibility shims in use? Are we > comfortable that the API is complete? > > 3) libsvn_ra_serf stabilization. I know there have been a couple concerns > that Philip has raised (EAGAIN and the random failures). Plus there are > several issues here (not all of the issues here are serf issues): > http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/buglist.cgi?issue_status=UNCONFIRMED&issue_status=NEW&issue_status=STARTED&issue_status=REOPENED&subcomponent=libsvn_ra_serf&subcomponent=libsvn_ra_neon > > Who can drive these issues to completion? Is there any additional testing > work we should do to try and determine the stability of serf in light of the > fact that we're planning to remove neon? > > 4) Symmetric merge. Should be done per julianf. > > 5) Inherited properties/Server-dictated configuration. This is marked as > completed but I see some discussion over property names still ongoing.
I jumped the gun a bit when I merged it back to trunk. I updated the road map. > 6) Conflict storage. This is marked as done but there was discussion in the > past about needing a wc format bump? Where are we with that? > > Beyond that we have the ordinary reviews of tests (pburba has said he's > working on this) Summary coming shortly. > , new apis and issue triage (cmpilato seems to have been > doing some issue triage). > > Also at the risk of opening a can of worms we need to decide on the wc > upgrade issue? I can say that the impression I got from Subversion Live was > that a lot of people use multiple clients and that auto-upgrade seems bad. > But we also discussed trying to handle reads from an older wcng style wc > without requiring a wc upgrade. Can someone drive this? > > cmpilato started a previous thread on 1.8 progress but it got distracted > with some other issues. A number of the same questions were outstanding > then. So I'd appreciate if we can keep this thread focused on the issues at > hand and not things we'd like to see in the future that aren't on the > roadmap. > > In particular I'd like to see the outcome of the thread be that we have some > idea what work we feel remains and who is going to be doing it. > > Lastly I don't want to give the impression that I'm rushing 1.8. However, I > would like us to see us focus on the things we want to get done with 1.8. -- Paul T. Burba CollabNet, Inc. -- www.collab.net -- Enterprise Cloud Development Skype: ptburba
