serf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com>
Subject Re: Short term release policy?
Date Tue, 08 Sep 2015 13:10:16 GMT
On 8 September 2015 at 16:08, Bert Huijben <bert@qqmail.nl> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Ivan Zhakov [mailto:ivan@visualsvn.com]
>> Sent: dinsdag 8 september 2015 14:50
>> To: Lieven Govaerts <lgo@mobsol.be>
>> Cc: Bert Huijben <bert@qqmail.nl>; dev@serf.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Short term release policy?
>>
>> On 1 September 2015 at 22:04, Lieven Govaerts <lgo@mobsol.be> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Sep 1, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Bert Huijben <bert@qqmail.nl> wrote:
>> >>         Hi,
>> >>
>> >> I received a number of very good questions this morning:
>> >> * Are we creating an announce@serf.apache.org mailinglist to announce
>> serf
>> >> releases?
>> >>
>> >> * Do we want to create future 1.3.x serf releases?
>> >> * If yes, do we want to change the license on 1.3.x?
>> >
>> > Why would we? Can't we focus on 1.4.0 instead?
>> One reason could be to complete ASF transition and make ASF release
>> with minimal changes, then focus on 1.4.0 (or 1.5.0) release.
>>
>> My favorite option to release serf 1.4.0 by copying 1.3.x branch and
>> merging license changes commits.
>
> That by itself won't work for Subversion 1.9.
>
> Subversion expects that it can enable logging for >= 1.4.0... So at the very least
we should add a dummy handler for that.
>
Oops, I forgot that Subversion 1.9 relies on unreleased feature.

> But if we do that, then I would also like to see the support for a few new error codes
to help diagnosing ssl problems.
> ...
>
> Just releasing a 1.3.9 with the license change would work for me.
>
OK, releasing 1.3.9 with the license change also would work for me.

-- 
Ivan Zhakov

Mime
View raw message