On 11/08/2012 03:50 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > C-Mike Pilato asks in > <http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4239>, > > "Julian, what is the exit criteria for this issue's completion? At what > point do we call it "finished" -- or at least finished enough that future > improvements can be tracked as unique issues?" I guess there are two > questions. > > 1. Do folks feel it's sufficiently operative to be released in its > current state, if it should happen that we get around to releasing 1.8 > before I do any more work on it, and if no-one else does any more work on > it? > > 2. What exactly should issue #4239 be tracking -- a specific actionable > item, or an open list of ideas for improvement (by reference to the wiki > page)? > > Personally, I feel for question (1) "yes, it's just about enough to be > worth releasing, although of course I'd like more", and for (2) I'd be > inclined to change the issue summary to "enhancements to the mergeinfo > summary", change the milestone to "unscheduled", and the priority to "a > bit lower". > > If no-one has other ideas, I'll update the issue accordingly.
I would agree with (1). Haven't used the feature extensively, but I did play with a handful of scenarios just to see what it did. I'm not a huge fan of open-ended issues such as you suggest for (2), because every time a commit is made toward that issue, the dev has to evaluate whether completion of the task has been achieved. Not sure which is the bigger evil, though: open-ended long-running issues, or the proliferation of tiny related task issues. Maybe something in-between? *shrug. No strong opinion here. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Enterprise Cloud Development
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
