through 1.17 to 2.0 and beyond (was Re: bzr 1.17rc1 released!)

Tom Cato Amundsen tca at gnu.org
Mon Jul 13 18:36:34 BST 2009


I'd vote for fixing https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr/+bug/397556
That is the only bug I know about now that causes problems for us that
are unfortunate to have ghosts in the revision history.
http://www.solfege.org/brz in my case.

Tom Cato

On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Martin Pool<mbp at sourcefrog.net> wrote:
> 2009/7/13 Jonathan Lange <jml at mumak.net>:
>> Bazaar continues to blaze a straight and shining path to the 2.0 release and
>> the elevation of the ``2a`` beta format to the full glory of "supported and
>> stable".
>
> Thanks, Jono, for bringing a new and rather poetic approach to release
> management.  They've been good releases I think, and I admire the
> verve of the announcements.
>
> The path to 2.0 is indeed pretty straight: 2.0 is all about general
> availability of the new, faster and smaller 2a repository format.  To
> get there, we need to close the bugs targeted to 2.0
> <https://edge.launchpad.net/bzr/+milestone/2.0>, be confident we have
> had sufficiently diverse testing and know what bugs are present, and
> then set that format to be the default
> <https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/bzr/+bug/398668>.
>
> If there are bugs you think ought to block 2.0 then feel free to
> nominate them either here or in the bug.
>
> We should do the next release one month from here on the regular
> schedule with the fixes that have been landed.  If the work that's
> done adds up to something we can call 2.0, that's great, let's do it.
> At the moment all we know is there are still bugs to fix, some of them
> serious, but not very many, so we'll see what is possible.
>
> Any other patches can be considered for this time but I'm asking the
> Canonical Bazaar people to focus primarily on getting 2a stable, as
> well of course as helping the community and reviewing patches.
>
> Post 2.0, I think we should stick with monthly releases, and do
> another larger cycle of about 6-12 months towards a 3.0, with at most
> one default format change at the end of that cycle.  That would imply
> that things like getting rid of OS locks on dirstate, which presumably
> take a format change, would only be in some kind of beta format until
> then.  But this is probably a topic for a separate thread, along with
> feature wishes for post 2.0.
>
> --
> Martin <http://launchpad.net/~mbp/>
>
>



-- 
Tom Cato Amundsen <tca at gnu.org>                 http://www.solfege.org/
GNU Solfege - free ear training    http://www.gnu.org/software/solfege/



More information about the bazaar mailing list