Daniel Shahaf writes:
> The text LGTM and it fits well in the flow. I might've used a box for it,
> but I suppose the tag does the job just as well. (The thinking being
> to make the warning stand out for users who skip the #compatibility
> section, which hasn't changed in years.)
I tend to t
Evgeny Kotkov wrote on Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:51 +0300:
> How about we mention this change in how 'svnadmin create' behaves,
> and also duplicate the warning about the no-upgrade-path policy for
> pre-releases?
>
> +++ publish/docs/release-notes/1.10.html(working copy)
> @@ -82,6 +82,14 @@ Su
Daniel Shahaf writes:
> With my RM hat off, the text LGTM except that I think #fsfs-format8
> should be mentioned under the #compatibility heading or linked from it,
> since the behaviour of 'svnadmin create' (without --compatible-version)
> has changed even for people who are agnostic to the lz4
Evgeny Kotkov wrote on Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:17 +0300:
> Daniel Shahaf writes:
>
> >> In particular I'd like to call out the FSFS f8 change. The email
> >> announcement already mentions that we do not promise an upgrade path for
> >> on-disk repositories to 1.10.0, but the release notes do not; I
Daniel Shahaf writes:
>> In particular I'd like to call out the FSFS f8 change. The email
>> announcement already mentions that we do not promise an upgrade path for
>> on-disk repositories to 1.10.0, but the release notes do not; I think it
>> would be good to have the release notes say that.
>
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:27 +:
> In particular I'd like to call out the FSFS f8 change. The email
> announcement already mentions that we do not promise an upgrade path for
> on-disk repositories to 1.10.0, but the release notes do not; I think it
> would be good to have the
6 matches
Mail list logo
