RE: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-14 Thread Bert Huijben
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

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-14 Thread Blair Zajac
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: >

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-14 Thread Julian Foad
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

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-13 Thread Blair Zajac
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

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-13 Thread Greg Stein
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

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-13 Thread Greg Stein
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

Policy for running mixed-patch-number,same-minor-number libraries (was: Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation)

2011-04-13 Thread Daniel Shahaf
(just changing the subject for greater visibility)

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-13 Thread Branko Čibej
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

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-13 Thread C. Michael Pilato
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

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-13 Thread Julian Foad
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

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-13 Thread Julian Foad
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

RE: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-13 Thread Bert Huijben
> -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

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-13 Thread Branko Čibej
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,

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-13 Thread Julian Foad
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

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-13 Thread Branko Čibej
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 >>>

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-12 Thread Julian Foad
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

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-11 Thread C. Michael Pilato
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

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-11 Thread C. Michael Pilato
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 ;)

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-11 Thread Noorul Islam K M
"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

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-09 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
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

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-07 Thread Daniel Shahaf
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

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-07 Thread C. Michael Pilato
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

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-07 Thread Stefan Sperling
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.

Re: 1.7 Roadmap Items Evaluation

2011-04-07 Thread Ivan Zhakov
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