Den tors 31 mars 2022 kl 17:48 skrev Mark Phippard <markp...@gmail.com>:
> We are getting closer to Saturday when I intended to roll the releases. > > There are a couple of impediments that may need to delay the release. > Looking for feedback: > > 1. I posted about the PGP KEYS file. Looking for guidance on how to > proceed. I think manually sending me a file to use could be an easy > workaround? > > 2. STATUS of 1.10.x and 1.14.x: > > This is what is left in 1.14: > > Candidate changes: > ================== > > * r1877310 > Add a test for issue #4711 "invalid xml file produced by svn log --xml > --verbose --use-merge-history --search". > Justification: > Increase test coverage. > Votes: > +0: danielsh (with appropriate Skip()/XFail() annotations if needed) > +1: hartmannathan > Test case. I've been working on solving the issue, and I have an updated test case on the way in. I'd say we ignore it and when I commit a fix for #4711 we nominate that one (including the updated test case). * r1878379, r1883719, r1883722, r1884610 > Distinguish configure scripts on release mode and non release mode. > Justification: > Building process should not be prevented by swig installed in users' > environment when users use release tar balls. > Votes: > +1: futatuki, stsp > I appreciate the idea but it is a fairly complex change with a lot of things going on in the build scripts. I'd suggest to ignore it for now and try to merge it after 1.14.2 is released. Then we have more time to manage regression. * r1890223, r1890668, r1890673 > Support building on Win64/ARM64. > Justification: > At user request (via SharpSvn) > votes: > +1: rhuijben > I'm not sure how to test this, not having an ARM64 box. Looks good, probably only affects Windows builds (and most everything #ifdef:ed to ARM64). +0 from me. > > * r1884474 > Fixes authz tests on Windows > Justification: > Should have been part of the r1883838 group that was backported > votes: > +1: markphip, jun66j5 > I (still) have not been able to get my Windows build rig up and running and thus I havn't tested it. The code looks quite quite harmless, so +0 (without testing) from me. In my opinion it isn't even in core code so I think it could be merged by just two votes. Kind regards, Daniel
