Re: Possible data corruption issue?

On Sat, May 31, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com> wrote:

> There's no doubt this is a nasty bug, and obviously, the fix should be
> backported to 1.5.1 at least. But does it justify an RC9? I'm not so
> sure. It's not exactly "corruption"... more like "misleading the user"
> or some lesser misdemeanor.

Thanks for the analysis and explanation. I could probably be swayed
either way on this one, but based on what you discovered and posted
here I am inclined to agree with you that this might not be worth
doing a new RC for. BTW, one thing I was not clear on in your
analysis, is whether the fix that glasser and cmpilato proposed for
backport has fixed the problem or not. It kind of sounds like there
is more to do?

Anyway, clearly there is a bug and clearly it needs to be fixed. I am
not sure if this qualifies are corruption or not. If it does, it is
at least on the mild end of the spectrum. I like to think of it in
other ways. If this bug existed in our official releases how quickly
would we push out a new .x release. I kind of do not see us rushing
one out the door over this. I think we would certainly start alerting
people that we need to create a .x release but I think we would let it
evolve and come out somewhat normally. The other criteria would be
whether we would backport this to several of our previous releases.
Again, I'd be surprised if we would backport this to 1.3, 1.2 etc.
based on what you have described above.

So based on that, I'd be inclined to say we could put this in a 1.5.1.

-- 
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org