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

Re: svn commit: r1293766 - /subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2012 12:22:15 +0100

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 09:40:57AM +0000, Julian Foad wrote:
> steveking_at_apache.org wrote on Sun, Feb 26, 2012 at 07:47:02 -0000:
>
> > + * r1235831, r1236099
> > +  Tweak the parsing of the ssl-authority-files config option to make it
> > +  easier for users to configure.
> > +  Justification:
> > +    Low impact change to help users.
> > +  Notes:
> > +    Both r1235831 and r1236099 conflict and will need a branch.
> > +  Votes:
> > +    +1: gstein, rhuijben, steveking
>
> It looks like a lovely change for 1.8, but am I the only one who thinks we shouldn't back-port this because it isn't
> forward-compatible?  That is, Subversion 1.7.0 isn't compatible with
> configurations created by a user of this patch.
>
> For reference, r1235831's log message is:
>
>   > Improve the handling of the ssl-authority-files config option:
>   > allow leading and trailing whitespace on the filenames to make
>   > it easier for the user to format the list of files.
>
> Are we willing to break our compatibility guarantees for the sake of
> this convenience?  I've added my veto to the STATUS file pending the
> outcome of this discussion.

I, too, think this doesn't make sense to backport.
It's a behaviour change, rather than a bug fix.

We also blocked changes like r1221463 from being backported, because
cmpilato argued that "a rollback to an earlier patch release would
break any bookmarks saved for URLs using the new syntax"

The same problem can happen with configuration file changes such as this.
We cannot control what happens to user configuration files during
upgrade/downgrade.
Received on 2012-02-27 12:23:47 CET

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