Branko Čibej wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 20:12:11 +0200: > On 01.07.2013 20:08, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Lieven Govaerts wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 19:44:24 +0200: > >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Ben Reser <b...@reser.org> wrote: > >>>> I know this is a holiday week for some people but I'd like to start > >>>> producing a 1.8.1 next Monday. So if everyone can look at the STATUS > >>>> file for 1.8.x and get any things they want in there I'll produce a > >>>> 1.8.1 tarball for voting sometime on Monday US/Pacific (UTC-7) time. > >>> Sounds good. I have kind of last track, do we need a new Serf release > >>> to fix some of the problems with ra_serf? > >> Yes we do, for NTLM support and the ssl tunnel authentication fixes. > > Do we need to block the 1.8.1 release on that release? Or can we > > release 1.8.1 and say "Upgrade to serf 1.2.2 when that is released"? > > In my opinion it's OK to release 1.8.1, and just put in the release > notes that in order to fix those problems, one needs to build with > Serf-1.2.2 or later. I expect that most people can get along just fine > with Serf-1.2.1; and, as Greg pointed out, Serf bugs are not Subversion > bugs. There are a number of important fixes ready for 1.8.1 that do not > depend on Serf.
Sure. My point was whether ra_serf would require changes too. If fixing the user issues requires just serf changes, we can cut our release whenever; if it requires ra_serf changes in addition to serf changes, it would be nice to get those ra_serf changes in 1.8.1.
