kfogel | 3 Oct 06:50 2003
Picon

0.32, the "1.0" milestone, and the 1.0 release.

A lot of folks have been asking, "What's up with the issues marked for
the '1.0' milestone?  Are they after Beta, or before Beta, or what?"

Okay, actually no one's been asking that.  But I wanted start with a
leading question, so I could pretend to answer it...

The "1.0" milestone has been a dumping ground for issues that are
nice-to-haves for a 1.0 release, but not truly required.  I won't talk
about particular issues here; anyone looking over the 25 or so "1.0"
bugs can come to their own conclusions about which ones are important
to fix before 1.0 and which aren't.  And probably not come to exactly
the same conclusion as someone else would, either :-).

Over the next day, you'll see me moving many of them to a new "1.1"
milestone, our first gradation in the hitherto-monolithic "Post-1.0"
category.  The rest will get moved to 0.32 or into the general
Post-1.0 pool.  None will be left in 1.0, because the only purpose of
that milestone was as a holding area until we got to this point.

I hope people are generally okay with this.  I certainly don't expect
everyone to agree with every decision, but do ask that you wait until
you have an overview of all the shifts before objecting to a
particular assignation.  Some serious triage is necessary, or we'll be
here all day, know what I mean? :-)

As for 0.32, Beta, and 1.0: The plan is that once 0.32 is complete, we
are officially "in Beta".  At that point, we will make a release
branch (called "stabilize-1.0" or something), which will be for
bugfixes only.  There will be cross-pollination between trunk and the
1.0 stabilization branch, but risky new features will stay confined to
(Continue reading)

Barry Scott | 4 Oct 12:46 2003

Re: 0.32, the "1.0" milestone, and the 1.0 release.

I'm just checked to see what the state of Python API was in the issues.
There is one issue 1451. Is it still you're intention to ship 1.0
without a scripting API that works? In my world this is a gating
factor for adoption of subversion. I'm not trying to change your
mind on release criteria, I just want to know when this will be
important enough to make work. Then I can plan what I do accordingly.

I'll keep working with Russell to get svn.client working to help
get this usable. But I fear that at some point we will run out of
knowledge of how subversion and its bindings are supposed to work and
will need help from a core developer.

BArry

At 03-10-2003 05:50, kfogel <at> collab.net wrote:
>A lot of folks have been asking, "What's up with the issues marked for
>the '1.0' milestone?  Are they after Beta, or before Beta, or what?"
>
>Okay, actually no one's been asking that.  But I wanted start with a
>leading question, so I could pretend to answer it...
>
>The "1.0" milestone has been a dumping ground for issues that are
>nice-to-haves for a 1.0 release, but not truly required.  I won't talk
>about particular issues here; anyone looking over the 25 or so "1.0"
>bugs can come to their own conclusions about which ones are important
>to fix before 1.0 and which aren't.  And probably not come to exactly
>the same conclusion as someone else would, either :-).
>
>Over the next day, you'll see me moving many of them to a new "1.1"
>milestone, our first gradation in the hitherto-monolithic "Post-1.0"
(Continue reading)

C. Michael Pilato | 4 Oct 15:17 2003
Picon

Re: 0.32, the "1.0" milestone, and the 1.0 release.

Barry Scott <barry <at> barrys-emacs.org> writes:

> I'm just checked to see what the state of Python API was in the issues.
> There is one issue 1451. Is it still you're intention to ship 1.0
> without a scripting API that works? In my world this is a gating
> factor for adoption of subversion. I'm not trying to change your
> mind on release criteria, I just want to know when this will be
> important enough to make work. Then I can plan what I do accordingly.
> 
> I'll keep working with Russell to get svn.client working to help
> get this usable. But I fear that at some point we will run out of
> knowledge of how subversion and its bindings are supposed to work and
> will need help from a core developer.

While I think the scripting language is important, I disagree on your
assertion that it needs to be perfected for 1.0.  In my mind,
Subversion 1.0 is about providing the tools and backing libraries to
give folks a real excuse to leave their crummy old CVS behind and
never look back.  We will do this.

I *would*, however, like to see our bindings shaped up -- with
dedicated maintainers for each supported language -- by Subversion
1.1.  And that means (IMO) a few things:

   - consolidation of effort: SWIG is a great tool that can go the
     distance if we can take the time to tune the interface files.  It
     bothers me that I can't talk about "the Java bindings" without
     having to state which one I'm talking about.

   - consolidation of design: while SWIG can do the gruntwork of
(Continue reading)

Barry Scott | 5 Oct 12:45 2003

Re: 0.32, the "1.0" milestone, and the 1.0 release.

At 04-10-2003 14:17, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>Barry Scott <barry <at> barrys-emacs.org> writes:
>
> > I'm just checked to see what the state of Python API was in the issues.
> > There is one issue 1451. Is it still you're intention to ship 1.0
> > without a scripting API that works? In my world this is a gating
> > factor for adoption of subversion. I'm not trying to change your
> > mind on release criteria, I just want to know when this will be
> > important enough to make work. Then I can plan what I do accordingly.
snip...

>While I think the scripting language is important, I disagree on your
>assertion that it needs to be perfected for 1.0.  In my mind,

I never asserted that. I asked for confirmation. You have confirmed that
1.1 is what I will need to wait for. I'll help how I can towards 1.1 for
the bindings.

>Subversion 1.0 is about providing the tools and backing libraries to
>give folks a real excuse to leave their crummy old CVS behind and
>never look back.  We will do this.
>
>I *would*, however, like to see our bindings shaped up -- with
>dedicated maintainers for each supported language -- by Subversion
>1.1.  And that means (IMO) a few things:
>
>    - consolidation of effort: SWIG is a great tool that can go the
>      distance if we can take the time to tune the interface files.  It
>      bothers me that I can't talk about "the Java bindings" without
>      having to state which one I'm talking about.
(Continue reading)

C. Michael Pilato | 5 Oct 15:51 2003
Picon

Re: 0.32, the "1.0" milestone, and the 1.0 release.

Barry Scott <barry <at> barrys-emacs.org> writes:

> >While I think the scripting language is important, I disagree on your
> >assertion that it needs to be perfected for 1.0.  In my mind,
> 
> I never asserted that. I asked for confirmation. You have confirmed that
> 1.1 is what I will need to wait for. I'll help how I can towards 1.1 for
> the bindings.

Fair enough.  Thank you for your grace.

> wxPython is very good. We build all our GUI tools using it at work.
> 
> There is very little in the extra layer. 99% of the .py is generated
> out of SWIG (that begs the question of what they do in the .i files).
> They do the prefix striping.
> 
> wxPython has a simpler job as wxWndows is OO so they have the object
> model. The design work for SVN is in creating that object model and
> implementing it out of the C binding. Once there is an object model it
> will be easy enough to implement in all the languages. Maybe SWIGing
> the C++ binding for SVN that RapidSVN(?) has is a better approach?

Hmm...  that's certainly worth exploring.  It unfortunately means we'd
have to maintain the C++ wrapper, the SWIG bindings of that wrapper,
and then (probably) some addition language-specific cleanup code atop
that.  But if the C++ API coverage is superb, maybe that's not such a
terrible thing.
Barry Scott | 5 Oct 18:22 2003

Re: 0.32, the "1.0" milestone, and the 1.0 release.

At 05-10-2003 14:51, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > the C++ binding for SVN that RapidSVN(?) has is a better approach?
>
>Hmm...  that's certainly worth exploring.  It unfortunately means we'd
>have to maintain the C++ wrapper, the SWIG bindings of that wrapper,
>and then (probably) some addition language-specific cleanup code atop
>that.  But if the C++ API coverage is superb, maybe that's not such a
>terrible thing.

I've had a quick look and like what I see.
They are patching to catch up with the API changes in 0.30.0 from
their last base line on 0.28.0. Then I'll try SWIGing their classes,
or even write a custom python extension to call their classes.

I think when 1.1 comes around it would be far better to have an
iterator version of svn_client_status rather then the callback
implementation you have.

Barry
Picon

RE: 0.32, the "1.0" milestone, and the 1.0 release.

> There is one issue 1451. Is it still you're intention to ship 1.0
> without a scripting API that works? In my world this is a gating
> factor for adoption of subversion. I'm not trying to change your
> mind on release criteria, I just want to know when this will be
> important enough to make work. Then I can plan what I do accordingly.

While a scripting API may be a gating factor in your world, in my world it
makes no difference whatsoever. We just want stable core functionality,
ASAWCGI (As Soon As We Can Get It). And a "1.0" label to satisfy the
management types.

--- Eric
Barry Scott | 8 Oct 00:06 2003

RE: 0.32, the "1.0" milestone, and the 1.0 release.

Eric,

I'm not sure what point you are making. As I said I'm not trying to change
the release criteria. Of course a scripting API is useless on an unstable
svn... And I agree about needing a "1.0" release and the support that it
implies, tested upgrade procedures to 1.1, 3rd party and open source add
ons.

Barry

At 06-10-2003 20:32, Wadsworth, Eric \(Contractor\) wrote:
> > There is one issue 1451. Is it still you're intention to ship 1.0
> > without a scripting API that works? In my world this is a gating
> > factor for adoption of subversion. I'm not trying to change your
> > mind on release criteria, I just want to know when this will be
> > important enough to make work. Then I can plan what I do accordingly.
>
>While a scripting API may be a gating factor in your world, in my world it
>makes no difference whatsoever. We just want stable core functionality,
>ASAWCGI (As Soon As We Can Get It). And a "1.0" label to satisfy the
>management types.
>
>--- Eric
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe <at> subversion.tigris.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help <at> subversion.tigris.org
C. Michael Pilato | 8 Oct 21:30 2003
Picon

svn.collab.net is going ...

... down for upgrade to 0.31.0.
C. Michael Pilato | 8 Oct 21:47 2003
Picon

Re: svn.collab.net is going ...

... up from upgrade to 0.31.0.

Gmane