On 17.02.2015 16:11, Julian Foad wrote: > On 2015-02-16 Branko Čibej wrote: >> On 12.02.2015 11:12, Branko Čibej wrote: >>> Looks like we're on track for branching around the beginning of next week. > [...] >>> If there are no further objections, and the pin-externals branch gets >>> merged soon-ish, I intend to create the 1.9 release branch on Sunday >>> night or Monday early morning (UTC). Ben has kindly been volunteered to >>> RM the first 1.9 release candidate >> I decided not to create the branch yet, as we have a number of (actual >> and potential) release blockers. > Am I alone in wondering why we keep delaying?
We don't "keep" delaying, I just happened to remember that we should, according to our own process docs, review blocker issues before branching. I don't think this was time wasted. > We should NOT be waiting for pin-externals. It's lovely, but it's a > last-minute mini-feature addition and, as such, it doesn't need to block > 1.9.0: if it's ready, we ship it, if not, we remove it or ship it with bugs. > >> These are the issues tagged with the 1.9.0 milestone: >> http://s.apache.org/cQw > Only two of these remain now. > >> * 4556: "Replace 'svn youngest' with another UI" >> * 4560: "pin-externals doc string and behavior not clear" > On the scale of release-blocker concerns for 1.9 these are trivial -- we > shouldn't be holding up the release for them. > > Issue #4556: Let's remove 'svn youngest' right away, and a replacement UI can > be pushed into 1.9.0 if it's ready in time, or not if it's not. The UI is a > nice-to-have, not a hard requirement. Ack. I'll merge the removal from the svn-info-detail branch now, close your issue and reopen #4299 as 1.9-consider. > Issue #4560: That's surely an acceptable task to be addressed during release > stabilization. > > >> These are defects tagged 1.9.0-consider: http://s.apache.org/Nft >> I'd appreciate getting some help with these; some are probably already >> fixed, a few may be release blockers. > There are 19 defects currently tagged 1.9.0-consider. I'll go through these > now and see if any are potential blockers, but they *shouldn't* be, if they > have the "-consider" tag. > > Let's not hold up long for this, either. > > Makes sense? Yup. I'll create the branch 'Round Midnight (thank you, Mr. Monk!) -- Brane
