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

Re: [HEADS-UP] Need more backports to 1.5.0? (was: Re: you're going to kill me, but... [Re: svn commit: r31625 -) branches/1.5.x]

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2008 22:06:29 +0200

On Sun, Jun 08, 2008 at 12:36:03PM -0700, David Glasser wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 3:41 AM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> > Also, there's another crash bug already waiting for 1.5.1, namely r31223.
> > Which is about "Fix segfault when svn_ra_open3 is passed a bogus URL such
> > as 'bogusURL'." This affects 1.4 API users as well, because svn_ra_open2
> > calls svn_ra_open3, passing the URL parameter through.
> >
> > r31223 was scheduled for 1.5.1 and not 1.5.0 by Eric because the crash
> > cannot happen with our svn(1) client. Because this is true also for the
> > (r31620, r31622) group, I opted for scheduling it for 1.5.1 as well.
> > Otherwise I would have nominated it for 1.5.0, because yes, crashing APIs
> > are really bad.
> >
> > If we put either fix into 1.5.0, it does not make much sense to exclude
> > the other.
> Not that I oppose backporting r31223, but there's a difference between
> "crashes instead of throwing an error message on bad input" and
> "breaks any program that tries to commit over the repos layer if
> there's a start-commit hook".

You're right.
I'm OK with backporting the (r31620, r31622) group only, and
scheduling r31223 back to 1.5.1.


  • application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on 2008-06-08 22:30:28 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.