On 8 September 2015 at 16:08, Bert Huijben <[email protected]> wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Ivan Zhakov [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: dinsdag 8 september 2015 14:50 >> To: Lieven Govaerts <[email protected]> >> Cc: Bert Huijben <[email protected]>; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: Short term release policy? >> >> On 1 September 2015 at 22:04, Lieven Govaerts <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Bert Huijben <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I received a number of very good questions this morning: >> >> * Are we creating an [email protected] mailinglist to announce >> serf >> >> releases? >> >> >> >> * Do we want to create future 1.3.x serf releases? >> >> * If yes, do we want to change the license on 1.3.x? >> > >> > Why would we? Can't we focus on 1.4.0 instead? >> One reason could be to complete ASF transition and make ASF release >> with minimal changes, then focus on 1.4.0 (or 1.5.0) release. >> >> My favorite option to release serf 1.4.0 by copying 1.3.x branch and >> merging license changes commits. > > That by itself won't work for Subversion 1.9. > > Subversion expects that it can enable logging for >= 1.4.0... So at the very > least we should add a dummy handler for that. > Oops, I forgot that Subversion 1.9 relies on unreleased feature.
> But if we do that, then I would also like to see the support for a few new > error codes to help diagnosing ssl problems. > ... > > Just releasing a 1.3.9 with the license change would work for me. > OK, releasing 1.3.9 with the license change also would work for me. -- Ivan Zhakov
