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

Re: [Second Request] Re: Stale logs and upgrading to WC-NG

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 May 2009 15:36:53 +0200

Yup. Thanks for the feedback.

On another note, elsewhere in this thread was a call for "maybe use
something other than 'svn cleanup'?" ... When Hyrum and I suggested
that command, it was in terms of "clean up your wc, to be usable by
1.7 [and yah... it upgrades it]." But in the past day, I believe we
are going to continue to need the historical concept of "cleanup",
even in the wc-ng world. To that end, I would propose a --upgrade
switch to cleanup, rather than a new 'upgrade' subcommand.

Thoughts welcome. I would be very interested in further feedback from
the community, since our development strategy really changes depending
on whether we need to run stale logs or not.


On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 15:24, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> We know what the ideal situation is, but it sounds like the development cost
> is crippling in this case.  I'm okay with calling this an unsupported edge
> case, and with recommending that folks ensure the successful completion of
> 'svn cleanup' in all working copies *before* upgrading to 1.7.
> Greg Stein wrote:
>> I'm issuing a second request for comment here. IMO, this is a pretty
>> dramatic departure from prior release strategy, and (for a few users)
>> it will be a pain to grab an old client to clean out the stale logs.
>> (or to do a new checkout, and figure out what changes to port over)
>> We're getting *very* close to the point where we're going to start on
>> a major hack/slash against the loggy code. We need to be sure that
>> people are bought into the position of, "oops. you crashed at a bad
>> spot. then upgraded your client. you're in a tough spot".
>> I'll assume "it's a total edge case, so yah. any stale logs prevent an upgrade."
>> If the problem space is unclear to anybody, then please let me know,
>> and Hyrum/myself can explain further.
>> Thanks,
>> -g
>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 03:01, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Regarding upgrading: I believe we should always be able to upgrade any
>>> production release. IOW, upgrade 1.0 working copies. I think it is
>>> simply part of our compatibility story across 1.x releases.
>>> The question at hand isn't so much upgrading as "should we expend the
>>> effort to run stale logs from within the 1.7 codebase, or send people
>>> back to a prior release to clear those out first?" (or they can just
>>> do a new checkout)  Running stale logs would be a HUGE effort, and
>>> potentially affecting mere handfuls of people. Thus, the reason for
>>> Hyrum's email.
>>> Cheers,
>>> -g
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2033486
> --
> C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
> CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand

Received on 2009-05-04 15:37:11 CEST

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