On Thu, Apr 7, 2022 at 7:43 AM Julian Foad <julianf...@apache.org> wrote:
> TL;DR: are we OK to merge the pristines feature
> ('pristines-on-demand-on-mwf' branch) to trunk soon, like early next week?
>
> As said in "A status review" [1] in the long thread "A two-part vision
> for Subversion and large binary objects.", next steps are reviewing and
> handling the outstanding issues, and proposing merge to trunk. I think
> these can be done in parallel as I don't see any that would block a
> merge to trunk. So here is the proposal to merge to trunk, and then
> complete the remaining work on trunk.
>
> It feels to me like there is general consensus that this feature is
> taking a form that will be acceptable for a first release of it (while
> not perfect), and consensus for proceeding to get it into trunk and
> subsequently including it in the next release. I'm too close to it to
> make an independent assessment. Can anybody else comment?
>
> If no objections, I plan to merge to trunk early next week.
>
> [1] on dev@, 2022-04-05,
> https://lists.apache.org/thread/lm98og8jqonffcs250q5y3ft5r5qlmk5
>
>
The branch worked for me when I last tested it and I saw no glaring issues
so I have no objections to merging it soon. That said, I would encourage,
if at all feasible, that we try to do two things first: decouple the format
32 and pod525 feature, and decide what the user-facing feature and its CLI
switches should be called so that our internal "plumbing" names won't stick
forever as the user-visible terms... If we can only do one of these, it
should probably be the naming.
Cheers,
Nathan
