[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn 1.1.1 with r11211 - users perspective

From: Ben Reser <ben_at_reser.org>
Date: 2004-10-10 20:59:51 CEST

On Sat, Oct 09, 2004 at 11:04:35PM -0500, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> "JS.staff" <jsparrow@ecclescollege.ac.uk> writes:
> > Guys, there is no loss of face in releasing 1.1.1 now. There is only
> > loss of face in releasing 1.1.0 with such a big bug in it (took me all
> > of 5 minutes to find! I should be an alpha tester! LOL). The
> > embarasment has already happened. Move on.
>
> Thanks for your mail -- it's useful feedback.
>
> I think the real issue is the effort of making another release. Also
> remember that there is a freeze period required for any release --
> only a showstopper bug would cause us to release a ".1" *immediately*
> after a ".0", without the testing period. There's also the question
> of whether a 1.0.9 is appropriate.

Actually we don't do freezes for patch releases. Only major and minor
releases. That said, there are four reasons I haven't cut a 1.1.1:

a) Time on my part. I should have time to do 1.0.9 and 1.1.1 this
coming week.

b) While the performance issue is annoying it is not a showstopper. It
was brought up at the time of the release. While we underestimated the
amount of annoyance it would cause and believed at the time that there
wasn't a fix, we felt it was not a showstopper. As kfogel points out
the only reason we'd cut a 1.1.1 immediately after a 1.1.0 is for a
showstopper.

c) We could cut a 1.1.1 quickly with just this fix. But we know of
several issues with 1.1.0. While less common some of them are harder to
work around or resolve. I believe most of these have been fixed over
this past week. But I need to go through my email and look at all the
issues and dig through the issue tracker to make sure. I do not want to
cut a 1.1.1 only to listen to a whole new group demand that we put out
1.1.2 because we didn't get their issue.

d) People that are finding this issue annoying have several options open
to them. If they do not need path based authentication with DAV they
can run 1.1.0-rc3. Practically the only difference between rc3 and rc4
is the security fix (which causes this problem). And there is only a
single syntax error fix in 1.1.0 final that was also introduced by the
security fix. People that do need the security fix can apply the patch.

I think it's inappropriate to rush a release for a non-showstopper
issue. We'll get the fix out in a release. But let's take the time to
make it a good release.

> (I don't recall anyone saying that loss of face was a reason not to
> release 1.1.1 right away. Are you thinking of a specific mail you
> saw, or are you just guessing about people's motivations?)

I have to agree with kfogel here. But I'll add that not releasing 1.1.1
doesn't save us any face. Nor do I see why anyone would conclude that.

> It's late here, so instead of launching a new thread proposing that we
> do 1.1.1/1.0.9 (and volunteer to manage the releases, since this
> situation isn't the regular RM's fault), I'm going to sleep on it and
> make sure that's something I really want to propose. So forget you
> ever heard this :-). (Of course, someone else could bring it up
> before tomorrow.)

I don't forsee any issues with cutting 1.0.9 and 1.1.1 next week
sometime. But I really do need to get through my email to see if there
are any outstanding issues.

-- 
Ben Reser <ben@reser.org>
http://ben.reser.org
"Conscience is the inner voice which warns us somebody may be looking."
- H.L. Mencken
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Oct 10 21:00:01 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.