Re: 1.7.0-rc1 on svn.apache.org
From: Joe Schaefer <joe_schaefer_at_yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 05:55:24 -0700 (PDT)
When infra does move svn to the 1.7 candidates,
we're committed to only moving forward with that,
not back to a previous 1.6. So as long as we're
all confident that serious problems can be addressed
in a reasonable period of time, I'm +1 as well.
>From: Hyrum K Wright <email@example.com>
>To: C. Michael Pilato <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Cc: Daniel Shahaf <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org
>Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 8:52 AM
>Subject: Re: 1.7.0-rc1 on svn.apache.org
>On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:06 AM, C. Michael Pilato <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On 08/23/2011 06:29 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> - Bert points out that the HTTPv2 code may not interact well with
>>> clients committing via the svn.eu mirror to an HTTPv2-enabled svn.us.
>> Hrm, I can't think of any scenarios in which having a newer master version
>> than slave version will cause issues. (It's the reverse case that can be
>> problematic.) But then, I'm not completely awake yet, either.
>Although I don't want to be playing fast-and-loose with the ASF repo,
>running the RC on svn.apache.org would give us just the type of
>testing in these types of scenarios that's difficult to do manually.
>Assuming there is a decent "what to do if this thing borks the server"
>plan, I'm +1.
>uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.