All of them: add, remove and change.
Just check something like the merge support over 1.6.X.
Bert Huijben (Cell phone) From: Blair Zajac
Sent: donderdag 14 april 2011 18:06
To: Julian Foad
Cc: Branko Čibej; dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation
On Apr 14, 2011, at
On Apr 14, 2011, at 2:19 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> Blair Zajac wrote:
>> On 04/13/2011 03:17 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> Branko Čibej wrote:
On 13.04.2011 11:37, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 11:33 +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 12.04.2011 18:50, Julian Foad wrote:
>
Blair Zajac wrote:
> On 04/13/2011 03:17 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Branko Čibej wrote:
> >> On 13.04.2011 11:37, Julian Foad wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 11:33 +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 12.04.2011 18:50, Julian Foad wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 11:08 -0400, C. Michael Pila
On 04/13/2011 03:17 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
Branko Čibej wrote:
On 13.04.2011 11:37, Julian Foad wrote:
On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 11:33 +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 12.04.2011 18:50, Julian Foad wrote:
On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 11:08 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
On 04/07/2011 08:49 PM, Daniel Sha
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:57, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 19:19, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>
>> "libsvn_ra_serf stabilization": Ivan and others have made progress in this
>> space, and AFAIK the Serf project has made the "new public release of serf
>> which contains the fix for t
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:19, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> I'm looking at a number of things right now, trying to get a handle on
> exactly where 1.7 is in its slow trek towards completion. Obviously, we
Thanks, Mike.
>...
> "Externals": This one concerns me. The referenced issue (#3818) implie
(just changing the subject for greater visibility)
On 13.04.2011 14:04, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 04/13/2011 06:17 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Are you saying we *do* support running a mixed set of Subversion
>> libraries (e.g. libsvn_client 1.7.0 + libsvn_wc 1.7.1 + ...)? I was
>> under the impression we had a policy of "you must upgrade (or dow
On 04/13/2011 06:17 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> Are you saying we *do* support running a mixed set of Subversion
> libraries (e.g. libsvn_client 1.7.0 + libsvn_wc 1.7.1 + ...)? I was
> under the impression we had a policy of "you must upgrade (or downgrade)
> the libraries as a complete set, not indi
On Mon, 2011-04-11, Noorul Islam K M wrote:
> "C. Michael Pilato" writes:
> > "Remove obliterate code": I think the obliterate code is all tucked away in
> > private functions and such at this point. Is that as far as we plan to take
> > this in 1.7? If not, the purge of this stuff would be som
Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 13.04.2011 11:37, Julian Foad wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 11:33 +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >> On 12.04.2011 18:50, Julian Foad wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 11:08 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 04/07/2011 08:49 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > C. Mich
> -Original Message-
> From: Branko Čibej [mailto:br...@xbc.nu] On Behalf Of Branko Cibej
> Sent: woensdag 13 april 2011 11:48
> To: Julian Foad
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation
>
> On 13.04.2011 11:37, Julian Foad wrote
On 13.04.2011 11:37, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 11:33 +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 12.04.2011 18:50, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 11:08 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
On 04/07/2011 08:49 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Thu, Apr 07,
On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 11:33 +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 12.04.2011 18:50, Julian Foad wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 11:08 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> >> On 04/07/2011 08:49 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >>> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:19:48 -0400:
> "Remove tem
On 12.04.2011 18:50, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 11:08 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> On 04/07/2011 08:49 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:19:48 -0400:
"Remove temp APIs": I would put this at "nice to have". These APIs are
>>>
On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 11:08 -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 04/07/2011 08:49 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > C. Michael Pilato wrote on Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:19:48 -0400:
> >> "Remove temp APIs": I would put this at "nice to have". These APIs are
> >> private, so what's the penalty if they wi
On 04/07/2011 08:49 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:19:48 -0400:
>> "Remove temp APIs": I would put this at "nice to have". These APIs are
>> private, so what's the penalty if they wind up in the release?
>
> We'd have to support them privately for t
On 04/09/2011 07:29 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> On 07.04.2011 17:19, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> "Review of performance branch": I get the sense from the list traffic that
>> we've kinda pulled what we want from this branch into trunk for now. Can
>> someone confirm?
>
> Someone can and I do ;)
"C. Michael Pilato" writes:
> "Remove obliterate code": I think the obliterate code is all tucked away in
> private functions and such at this point. Is that as far as we plan to take
> this in 1.7? If not, the purge of this stuff would be some pretty
> low-hanging fruit for a would-be contrib
On 07.04.2011 17:19, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
"Review of performance branch": I get the sense from the list traffic that
we've kinda pulled what we want from this branch into trunk for now. Can
someone confirm?
Someone can and I do ;) The remaining 20% of the patches
on the performance branch
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:19:48 -0400:
> "Remove temp APIs": I would put this at "nice to have". These APIs are
> private, so what's the penalty if they wind up in the release?
We'd have to support them privately for the rest of the 1.7.x line, due
to private ABI compati
On 04/07/2011 11:57 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 19:19, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>>
>> "libsvn_ra_serf stabilization": Ivan and others have made progress in this
>> space, and AFAIK the Serf project has made the "new public release of serf
>> which contains the fix for the mass
On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 11:19:48AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> "Externals": This one concerns me. The referenced issue (#3818) implies
> that we plan to completely rework our storage and handling of externals in
> the 1.7 timeframe. Further, there are references to regressions against
> 1.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 19:19, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>
> "libsvn_ra_serf stabilization": Ivan and others have made progress in this
> space, and AFAIK the Serf project has made the "new public release of serf
> which contains the fix for the massive SSL memory leak" that we call for.
> What's l
24 matches
Mail list logo