On Nov 22, 2007 7:34 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> glasser@tigris.org wrote:
> > Author: glasser
> > Date: Thu Nov 22 14:46:08 2007
> > New Revision: 27983
> >
> > Log:
> > STATUS: Yet another reason you should vote for r27256.
> >
> > Modified:
> > branches/1.4.x/STATUS
> >
> > Modified: branches/1.4.x/STATUS
> > URL: http://svn.collab.net/viewvc/svn/branches/1.4.x/STATUS?pathrev=27983&r1=27982&r2=27983
> > ==============================================================================
> > --- branches/1.4.x/STATUS (original)
> > +++ branches/1.4.x/STATUS Thu Nov 22 14:46:08 2007
> > @@ -33,6 +33,9 @@
> > from any changes in the txn, they won't commit.
> > * I suspect that this is the cause of an FSFS corruption
> > observed during performance testing by Dan Christian.
> > + * Fixes a serious user-reported corruption problem with
> > + commits over mod_dav_svn:
> > + http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2007-11/0964.shtml
> > Votes:
> > +1: glasser, hwright
>
> IIRC, we've had a few data corruption fixes go into 1.4.x since we
> released 1.4.4 at the beginning of June (almost 6 months ago!). I would
> like to propose a review of STATUS and a release of 1.4.6 by the end of
> next week.
>
> Last time we discussed the subject (see
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2007-10/0146.shtml), people wanted to
> wait until 1.5 branched. That has been longer in coming than
> anticipated, and I think we owe it to our users to get these fixes out
> the door. Plus, prepping 1.4.6 would get people's test environments in
> shape for 1.5.0-rc1 :)
>
> Would a target date of Nov. 30 be unreasonable?
+1. I did a review of STATUS a few weeks ago for just this reason.
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser_at_davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 23 02:08:20 2007