On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote: > On 06.03.2017 12:27, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >> On 06.03.2017 10:38, Stefan Sperling wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:54:15PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: >>>> The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing. >>>> >>>> The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on >>>> Windows. >>>> The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on >>>> trunk@r1783880. >>>> >>>> Full committers, please get this release from >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion >>>> and add your signatures there. >>>> >>>> Thank you! >>> I am on the fence about actually releasing 1.10.0-alpha2. >>> >>> I am a bit worried about announcing a new 1.8/1.9/1.10 release which >>> does >>> not address any SHA1 issues. And I believe that 1.10 should do something >>> meaningful about SHA1 so the alpha is not feature complete and feels >>> premature. >>> >>> Does anyone share these concerns? If not, I can release alpha2 this >>> week. >>> >> FWIW, the server-side fixes for FSFS should go up tonight. >> FSX should follow soon and BDB is not affected, IIRC. > > We never implemented rep sharing for BDB. > >> I think alpha3 would be a good idea. It would also fix the >> svnconflict.c compilation issue making this a more >> "rounded" release. > > +1
Agreed, addressing the SHA1 issues sounds important enough to wait with the alpha until we have some meaningful fixes in there. Apart from the server-side fix(es), I was under the impression that the working copy also needed fixing (being able to store collisions in the pristine store), and perhaps the ra_serf protocol? -- Johan
