Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:08:51 +0000
From: Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
To: dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: conflict resolver status update (roll 1.10.0 alpha 1?)
Message-ID: <20170124170851.GB4499@fujitsu.shahaf.local2>
References: <20170124112038.gqdr3zw5stixoh7c@jim.stsp.name>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <20170124112038.gqdr3zw5stixoh7c@jim.stsp.name>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
archived-at: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 17:13:13 -0000

Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:20:39 +0100:
> I would like to get an 1.10.0 alpha1 released in February. Unless I hear
> objections I will start rolling this alpha release from trunk and call a
> vote on it soon.

That all sounds good.

However, last time we did that we had barely any feedback.  How do we
plan to change that this time?

Maybe some combination of

- Posting on users@ or announce@ soliciting testing

- Asking downstreams (distros) to make alpha1 packages easily available to opting-in users

- Asking client authors to make alpha1 versions easily available to opting-in users
  [e.g., tsvn nightlies — and then call for tsvn users to install them...]

[And no doubt more avenues]

We should be clearer in these communications about the implications of
using an alpha, i.e., the "use it only on wc's you can re-checkout, and
not on the server-side" warning.

Cheers,

Daniel