subversion-1.1 is released. It would be great to include this. It allows use of subversion without requiring a database. It would be good to include this capability before many users have migrated to subversion.
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:51:39 -0400, Neal D. Becker wrote:
subversion-1.1 is released. It would be great to include this.
I agree; the fsfs storage format has made subversion usable for me.
I've been running pre-releases of subversion 1.1 for some time without problems.
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:51:39 -0400, Neal D. Becker ndbecker2@verizon.net wrote:
subversion-1.1 is released. It would be great to include this. It allows use of subversion without requiring a database. It would be good to include this capability before many users have migrated to subversion.
Doubtful, if there was already a plan in place to include the available preleases during testing then I wouldn't hold out much hope that the new version released after fc3t2 creation is now going to get in so late in the testing phase. The schedule places Sept 1st as the deadline for new major version slush. And if fedora was planning on making subversion an exception to the rule, the pre-releases of 1.1 would have been in both test1 and test2. Prelease 1 for 1.1 was released in July.
-jef"I'm sure version 1.1 is great, im sure it can save the whales and cure canceer, but I wouldn't hold my breath"spaleta
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 08:11:00AM -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:51:39 -0400, Neal D. Becker ndbecker2@verizon.net wrote:
subversion-1.1 is released. It would be great to include this. It allows use of subversion without requiring a database. It would be good to include this capability before many users have migrated to subversion.
Doubtful, if there was already a plan in place to include the available preleases during testing then I wouldn't hold out much hope that the new version released after fc3t2 creation is now going to get in so late in the testing phase. The schedule places Sept 1st as the deadline for new major version slush.
1.0 -> 1.1 is a minor version upgrade not a major version upgrade. If I can fix the remaining build issues today I'd like to get 1.1.0 in FC3t3.
joe
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:34:43PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 08:11:00AM -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:51:39 -0400, Neal D. Becker ndbecker2@verizon.net wrote:
subversion-1.1 is released. It would be great to include this. It allows use of subversion without requiring a database. It would be good to include this capability before many users have migrated to subversion.
Doubtful, if there was already a plan in place to include the available preleases during testing then I wouldn't hold out much hope that the new version released after fc3t2 creation is now going to get in so late in the testing phase. The schedule places Sept 1st as the deadline for new major version slush.
1.0 -> 1.1 is a minor version upgrade not a major version upgrade. If I can fix the remaining build issues today I'd like to get 1.1.0 in FC3t3.
Hi Joe,
have a look at http://atrpms.net/name/subversion/, which has specfiles for 1.1.0.
Thanks!
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 03:05:54PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 01:34:43PM +0100, Joe Orton wrote:
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 08:11:00AM -0400, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 11:51:39 -0400, Neal D. Becker ndbecker2@verizon.net wrote:
subversion-1.1 is released. It would be great to include this. It allows use of subversion without requiring a database. It would be good to include this capability before many users have migrated to subversion.
Doubtful, if there was already a plan in place to include the available preleases during testing then I wouldn't hold out much hope that the new version released after fc3t2 creation is now going to get in so late in the testing phase. The schedule places Sept 1st as the deadline for new major version slush.
1.0 -> 1.1 is a minor version upgrade not a major version upgrade. If I can fix the remaining build issues today I'd like to get 1.1.0 in FC3t3.
Hi Joe,
have a look at http://atrpms.net/name/subversion/, which has specfiles for 1.1.0.
Thanks Axel. That didn't help for the Perl modules issue, which was fixed by using make "pure_vendor_install ..." it seems, but the %find_lang stuff was needed too so that saved me some minutes :)
Regards,
joe
--On Friday, October 01, 2004 1:34 PM +0100 Joe Orton jorton@redhat.com wrote:
1.0 -> 1.1 is a minor version upgrade not a major version upgrade. If I can fix the remaining build issues today I'd like to get 1.1.0 in FC3t3.
What are the outstanding build issues? Are there things in the RH spec file that should be pushed upstream?
On Fri, Oct 01, 2004 at 08:28:49AM -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
--On Friday, October 01, 2004 1:34 PM +0100 Joe Orton jorton@redhat.com wrote:
1.0 -> 1.1 is a minor version upgrade not a major version upgrade. If I can fix the remaining build issues today I'd like to get 1.1.0 in FC3t3.
What are the outstanding build issues? Are there things in the RH spec file that should be pushed upstream?
1) a Makefile dependency issue which triggered with our nice "make -j8" builds
2) some new Perl bindings issue where the modules are now getting installed in site_perl rather than vendor_perl with the Raw Hide Perl package, not sure yet if this is my fault or Chip's :)
joe
Joe Orton jorton@redhat.com writes:
- some new Perl bindings issue where the modules are now getting
installed in site_perl rather than vendor_perl with the Raw Hide Perl package, not sure yet if this is my fault or Chip's :)
On the 'perl Makefile.PL' code path, you can do 'INSTALLDIRS=vendor' to get the modules to go into the vendor directory tree instead of the site tree.
Chip
-
Axel Thimm -
Chip Turner -
Jef Spaleta -
Joe Orton -
Kenneth Porter -
Neal Becker -
Troels Arvin