On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 9:44 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> wrote: > On 04/10/2013 12:33 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 11:34:12AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >>> On 04/10/2013 11:23 AM, Julian Foad wrote: >>>> So shall we get this branch branched very soon? For the sake of making a >>>> decision, I'll suggest that we should try hard to get the things above >>>> resolved by the end of tomorrow, and that even if we don't they are not >>>> blockers, so: >>>> >>>> Let's branch on Friday. >>>> >>>> Any support or objections? >>> >>> None. In fact, thanks to your email, I had to discard my own draft mail >>> which said similar things but suggested we branch on Monday. :-) >>> >>> (Paul, Bert: If you're watching for that mail from me, it won't get sent >>> now -- we can discuss and +1 on this thread just as easily.) >>> >>> +1 to a Friday branch unless folks raise reasonable objections. >> >> Right now, trunk has APIs backing an 'svnadmin info' (or 'svnlook info') >> command but not a UI for them. (Some of them have unit tests.) I think we >> don't want to release with just the half-backed APIs, so we'll have to either >> revert them or add a UI for them. As far as I'm concerned reverting is fine, >> and I can continue the work on trunk and propose for backport before, say, >> beta1. > > Either revert or privatize them -- whatever's easiest. Now's really not the > best time to be trying to introduce new UI, methinks. > +1
-- Ivan Zhakov
