[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: Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2011 13:26:55 +0400

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:38, Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl> wrote:
>> -----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
> distribution.
> * 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 fully agree with Bert: this upgrade bug is show stopper for 1.7.0. I
do not see the problem with restarting soak period because we found
bugs: this is purpose soak period and stabilization to release
software without known important issues.

Ivan Zhakov
Received on 2011-08-24 11:28:05 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.