1.6 plans

[John Arbash Meinel]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Ian Clatworthy wrote:
| Martin Pool wrote:
|
|> Is there anything else, or any objection to the above?
|
| I'd actually like the content filtering stuff to land in 1.6 *if
| possible* because that would then allow various plugins (like eol)
| to begin to appear. I'm not sure though if we're close enough to
| agreement in order to land it and for everyone to be happy, so
| the right thing to do socially is to delay it. OTOH, if the changes
| needs to land it are small, it would be a shame if it missed the cut.
|
| There are two primary issues IMO:
|
| 1. the API plugin authors use to register filters
| 2. what impact the changes make when no filters are enabled.
|
| I'm happy with the abstraction in place for the first, though it
| may be more abstraction than needed.
|
| I'm yet to measure the latter. IIRC, the "don't bother checking
| the SHAs because we know the sizes differ" optimisation in iter_changes
| will no longer apply. I wonder how much difference that will make
| in practice?

Quite honestly, I don't expect it to make a big difference. While
reading a file and sha-ing it is a bit of waste, the important thing is
to not do that to the 99% of files that *haven't* changed.

|
| We've made some great progress on win32 support this release. Adding
| the content filtering to the core so that an eol plugin can be tried
| out by early adopters would be well received by many I think. I
| appreciate that my content filtering patch isn't production
| strength yet. If we think the impact on those not using filters is
| acceptable though, I think it's worthy of inclusion as an experimental
| feature.
|
| Thoughts?
|
| Ian C.

I'm a bit concerned that we are running into the "let's delay to get the
last XX in" which has sort of crept into the 1.6 release. I agree with
your reasoning, as long as it is small things that are needed.

But mostly, I would *really* like to get back to timely releases. 1.6
has just taken forever. I think if we had been doing monthly releases,
we would have already done 1.7 by now.

bzr 1.3   2008-03-20
bzr 1.3.1 2008-04-09
bzr 1.4   2008-04-28
bzr 1.5	  2008-05-16
bzr 1.6b1 2008-06-02
bzr 1.6b2 2008-06-10
bzr 1.6b3 2008-07-17 ??? More than a month since b2

The desire to get things into a release was *why* we switched to
time-based releases. There is much less pressure if you know it will
make it a month later if it doesn't happen now.

At least, something to think about.
John
=:->
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Cygwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkiAAXMACgkQJdeBCYSNAAMnSACgjAJkxj4e5fTeNPukCE/PvAD1
JpIAn0xuiLKa/3Vk7aQg9omu/m3X9FIc
=q/ro
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----