On Mon, Jul 10, 2006 at 11:56:28AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Malcolm Rowe wrote:
> > I also feel that we seem to be too hung up on creating a 'perfect'
> > release. For example, we've had enough signatures for 1.4.0-rc1 to
> > release for a while, but we held it up because of a theoretical problem
> > that only manifested itself with BDB-backed --bdb-txn-nosync repositories.
>
> Um. No. This was no theoretical problem. Tests were failing. Garrett and
> I both experienced the problem independently. We held up the 1.4.0-rc1
> release because we felt rc2 was gonna be out in a matter of days. In
> retrospect, that might not have been such a good plan. Maybe better to
> release rc1 with a warning message about known problems (I mean, I'm running
> rc1 on svn.collab.net right now with no issues, so presumably others could,
> too) and then continue as usual towards rc2.
>
Just to clarify (because I don't think I was very clear above), the
'theoretical' part of the problem I was referring to was the BDB
pool-destruction ordering bug that I don't pretend to understand,
and that was recently fixed.
But now that you mention it, we could have released -rc1 with the initial
--bdb-txn-nosync bug present (i.e. before Garrett's pool-destruction fix
in svnserve) and just noted the problem as a known bug for that release.
Regards,
Malcolm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jul 10 18:29:21 2006