From dev-return-37443-archive-asf-public=cust-asf.ponee.io@subversion.apache.org Fri Feb 9 18:08:23 2018 Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@eu.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by mx-eu-01.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACDCC180654 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 18:08:23 +0100 (CET) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 9C3F4160C4C; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 17:08:23 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id D8117160C2E for ; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 18:08:22 +0100 (CET) Received: (qmail 51931 invoked by uid 500); 9 Feb 2018 17:08:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 51920 invoked by uid 99); 9 Feb 2018 17:08:21 -0000 Received: from mail-relay.apache.org (HELO mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org) (207.244.88.137) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Feb 2018 17:08:21 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (unknown [81.174.159.228]) by mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mailrelay2-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPSA id 79311B7C; Fri, 9 Feb 2018 17:08:20 +0000 (UTC) Subject: Re: Reviewing 1.10 APIs & compatibility To: Philip Martin Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org References: <02e94769-17a8-fc9c-30ad-3b71f1b2977b@apache.org> <87wp0ivflr.fsf@codematters.co.uk> <87po5gbfqk.fsf@codematters.co.uk> From: Julian Foad Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 17:08:17 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87po5gbfqk.fsf@codematters.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-GB Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Philip Martin wrote: > [...] I've looked at all the > errors that mixed 1.9-1.10 testing showed and I don't think any of them > are release critical. That's good news indeed. Then compatibility testing is no longer blocking the release. > For this particular test, the locking error > message, we might choose to backport a 1.9 client fix to improve the > client-generated error message and such a backport might make any change > to the trunk test redundant. It may even be better to leave the trunk > test unchanged so that it fails with 1.9.7 but passes with some future > 1.9.8. Sounds reasonable. - Julian