Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 18:25:10 +0200:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 05:07:49PM +0100, Jon Foster wrote:
> > So... what do we do if a 1.7 svnsync connects to a <=1.6 mirror server?
> > Some options are:
Right now, the code uses option (1).
> > 1) It works like 1.6 - i.e. it does buggy locking that works most of the
> > time, then one day it corrupts the mirror repo.
> > 2) It runs without even trying to do locking. This is likely to be more
> > obvious to the sysadmin, so they might notice it in testing.
> > 3) It errors out with an informative message. If the user has control
> > of the mirror server, they can upgrade it to 1.7. Alternatively, if the
> > user doesn't need locking (e.g. they have set up external locking), they
> > can pass --disable-locking to svnsync.
> > I really don't like option 1. I think Subversion should be reliable,
> > and random corruption is not good. I'd like to get rid the old, buggy
> > locking code.
> > I'm not keen on option 2 either. Silently disabling a
> > required-for-correctness feature seems like a really bad idea. And the
> > locking has always been a documented feature (even if it's never
> > worked).
> > So I guess that leaves option 3. That's not fully backwards-compatible
> > - you can't just drop in a 1.7 svnsync to replace a 1.6 svnsync, unless
> > you update the server at the same time. But I feel that it's the least
> > bad option.
> I agree that option 3 is best. There's no point in hiding the problem
> from the user in the name of backwards compatibility.
How about combining (1) and (3) --- that is, using the old locking mode
(with its known race condition) but print a warning that the mirror
server should be upgraded? That seems better than a fatal error for
a condition that needs to be fixed on the server end.
While here, there is a similar issue in svn_client_revprop_set2(). On
the branch, it tries to be atomic if possible; but on trunk, it has
always used a racy implementation. What do you think should be done
in that case?
> Daniel, this can easily be done on trunk, too, if you decide to merge
> the branch back soon.
Received on 2010-09-21 18:51:56 CEST