Jens Peters wrote:
> Lieven Govaerts wrote:
>> First of all we don't have a fix yet. Well, the changes I made to fix
>> those two authz tests broke some other tests :(
>> Ideally we do not ship code with known errors. The reasons I'm ok with
>> postponing this particular fix to 1.5.1 are mainly because it's about
>> time we get 1.5.0 released, and the issue only shows up in ra_serf, an
>> expiremental module which failed those tests in 1.4 too.
> Thanks for your answer. Ok, I understand. Actually, how experimental is
> ra_serf? I got the impression that it has a similar status as FSFS
> compared to BDB? I never saw a warning during configure (or make_gen in
> my case) that I'm about to include experimental stuff...
Your impression is wrong in a couple of ways. First, FSFS is not
experimental -- it is the default backend store for Subversion, and there's
no way we'd make an experimental filesystem implementation the default.
Second, ra_serf isn't even up to par with ra_neon in the way that FSFS is
with BDB. A bug in ra_serf is not allowed to forcibly stop our release
process (though we may *choose* to halt it in order to fix ra_serf if we wish).
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-05-28 15:25:06 CEST