On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 2:35 PM, Jacek Materna <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Is there a general GA or BETA timeframe/date on the roadmap for the
> 1.10 rls? Trying to understand timeline.
I'm afraid there is no clear timing we can give (other committers:
feel free to correct me). On our roadmap page  it says "2017
(tentative)" ... hmmm :-).
That page also says: "Subversion uses a compromise between time-driven
and feature-driven release planning. We schedule the next release for
an approximate date (very approximate), and make sure it contains one
or more new features or other significant differentiators, but we
don't say exactly what those new features will be."
So, sorry, no concrete timeline at this point. Though I get the
feeling we're pretty close to wrapping things up, and just need that
final push ... (just my impression / opinion).
We were rolling alpha's, ran aground because of the
sha1-collision-issue, and just recently started to make progress
Can we restart rolling releases now? Should we make another alpha, or
go for a beta now? IIUC the difference is whether we are feature
complete or not -- I don't see anyone working on new features, so I
guess we are. Or am I missing something?
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, 24 May 2017 14:44 +0200:
> We were rolling alpha's, ran aground because of the
> sha1-collision-issue, and just recently started to make progress
> Can we restart rolling releases now? Should we make another alpha, or
> go for a beta now? IIUC the difference is whether we are feature
> complete or not -- I don't see anyone working on new features, so I
> guess we are. Or am I missing something?
What needs to happen before we can create the 1.10.x branch?
On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 7:58 PM, Stefan Sperling <[hidden email]> wrote:
> On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 02:44:24PM +0200, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> Can we restart rolling releases now?
> Sure! I believe all that's needed is a committer who puts on the release
> manager hat and kicks off the process described in our community guide.
Great! But ... it's probably not going to be me :-) (our release
process seems fairly unix-specific -- and my time is very limited
too). Any takers?
> I suppose we might want to do the pending 1.9 and 1.8 releases (with
> the server-siide SHA1 fix) before taking another stab at 1.10.
Agreed. However, there still is quite some work to do for 1.9
(buildbots are unhappy -- haven't looked into it), and in 1.8.x/STATUS
the SHA1 backport only has 1 full vote (stefan2) and 1 partial vote