Johan Corveleyn wrote on Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 12:52:03 +0100: > 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. >
I think there are two separate questions here: - Should we release alpha2 - Should we release alpha3 with sha1 fixes I'm happy to join the consensus and +1 the latter. However, I also +1 the former. I don't see a reason to hold alpha2: it is rolled, it is voted on, and being an alpha it comes with no compatibility strings attached. So I lean on the side on releasing alpha2 and indicating in the release announcement (the mail to announce@ and the index.html blurb) and an alpha3 is expected within ${timeframe} that will include sha1 fixes. > 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? And 'svnadmin load' — but why should we wait for all these to be written? It's not a release candidate, it's just an alpha, and we do have features that we want users to test (stsp's conflicts work). Cheers, Daniel