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

Re: RC 5 tomorrow

From: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>
Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 16:48:30 -0500

Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
>> On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
>> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>> Mark Phippard wrote:
>>>> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
>>>> <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>>> We've fixed a couple of showstopper bugs and made a few API changes on
>>> the
>>>>> 1.5.x branch, which necessitates another RC (and a restart of the
>>>>> soak).
>>>>> I'd like to roll RC 5 tomorrow (~1900 UTC), so please nominate and
>>>>> vote
>>> on
>>>>> appropriate changes before then.
>>>> I do not think we should roll the RC5 without the log-g changes that
>>>> cmpilato has done in that branch. I have tested the branch and not
>>>> only does it fix virtually all of the problems that have been reported
>>>> with log -g it also greatly improves the performance of the command.
>>> Do we have an ETA for Mike's work to land in trunk, and then get
>>> nominated
>>> for 1.5.x? If doing it by this afternoon (or evening) isn't
>>> unreasonable,
>>> I'd still like to get RC 5 done in the next 24 hours.
>> Not sure. I am little worried about the current RC code though and
>> how much server resources it might use up. Not to mention that a lot
>> of simple cases do not work for some reason as well. So I think it is
>> worth getting the improved code in place. I just ran JavaHL tests and
>> they passed. Now running the ra_local tests.
>> Maybe Mike should commit what he has and if he wants to make further
>> improvements it can be for 1.5.1? We probably need to hear from him
>> on what he thinks is left.
> It's been merged to trunk, and nominated for backport to 1.5.x. The
> "important to fix" issues in STATUS are:
> * r30883: kfogel and reviewing right now.

Merged in r30975.

> * r30896 and friends: fix SASL
> * Remove exit_code from a test (tests won't pass without this, hence
> it's a blocker.)
> * r30931: Potential dataloss bug

Merged in r30978.

> * r30963: Not technically a blocker, but a pretty big performance
> booster. Would be nice to have.

Mark and I will look at this.

> Are any other items in STATUS blockers?
> Given the plethora of stuff still in STATUS, and the fact that I'm not
> going to be around tonight, I can roll the RC tomorrow morning.


Received on 2008-05-02 23:48:48 CEST

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.