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

RE: rc1 is DOA. What now?

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:38:13 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:stsp_at_elego.de]
> Sent: woensdag 24 augustus 2011 9:50
> To: Markus Schaber
> Cc: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: rc1 is DOA. What now?
> On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 08:46:17AM +0200, Markus Schaber wrote:
> > To support this unlocking, it would additionally force our software to
> > carry both SVN 1.6 and SVN 1.7 libraries at the same time.
> If 1.7.0 was released with this upgrade bug, you would simply have to
> wait for a 1.7.x patch release which fixes the bug before upgrading
> from 1.6.x.
> This is basically just like any other show stopper you might find
> during the upgrade to 1.7. Except that you already know about it now :)
> But I understand your complaints and agree that the problem needs
> to be fixed in 1.7.x eventually.

* The average TortoiseSVN user in a corporate environment can't
upgrade/downgrade its own installation as that as managed via automated
* TortoiseSVN versions can't be installed side by side.
(The same problem applies to big multi user installations on shared linux
installations using plain svn)

How would you answer an e-mail from your sysadmin that tonight before you go
home you have to remove all locks from all your working copies because
otherwise tomorrow your working copies are broken?
(Assuming you have over 40 independent working copies, not counting possible
directory externals, like I had when I worked at TCG)

I call this a show stopper; and as I suggested before suggesting these users
to wait until 1.7.1 is the same as calling this a show stopper.
And it also breaks the perfect stability track record we had with a
known-in-advance broken release.

In my opinion this issue must be fixed by 1.7.0.

I don't care if we release rc1 anyway, reroll that as beta4 today or roll a
rc2 this week or accept this as a low impact fix for 1.7.0 without
restarting the soak. But rolling a known broken 1.7.0 because it is already
late is not good enough.

Maybe it is for the few developers who build and install their own binaries
side by side, but not for our real users.

Taking a few weeks to discuss this issue before making a decision is not
going to help...
 Ivan and I already described this as a show stopper for our users and I'm
pretty sure Stefan would too.
(As noted by Markus I already have the fix in my daily snapshots which
currently follow 1.7.x)

Received on 2011-08-24 10:39:22 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.