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

Re: svn commit: r1483186 - in /subversion/branches/1.8.x: ./ STATUS subversion/libsvn_client/repos_diff.c subversion/tests/cmdline/diff_tests.py

From: Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com>
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 16:45:20 +0400

On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 4:35 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> On 05/20/2013 06:58 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On Thu, May 16, 2013 at 8:01 AM, <svn-role_at_apache.org> wrote:
>>> Author: svn-role
>>> Date: Thu May 16 04:01:25 2013
>>> New Revision: 1483186
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1483186
>>> Log:
>>> Merge the r1482969 group from trunk:
>>>
>>> * r1482969, r1482970
>>> Fix issue #4366 ("client SEGFAULTs diffing a repos rev in which an
>>> empty file was added").
>>> Justification:
>>> SEGFAULTs are consider rude in polite company.
>>> Votes:
>>> +1: cmpilato, philip, rhuijben
>>>
>> Issue #4366 also affects merging of empty files: merge of empty files
>> add causes crash in Subversion 1.8.0-rc2. It seems to be significant
>> reason to re-roll RC and restart soak period.
>
> +1 to a new RC (scheduled by common agreement of the devs -- no need to rush
> one out the door).
>
> -1 to restarting the soak period for this.
>
> May I remind us all: a full four-week soak period restart is done to allow
> time to exercise the many different codepaths affected by a destabilizing
> bugfix. It is *not* done simply because the bug that got fixed is a
> high-priority one.
>
> This bug fix is a single boolean toggle that affects one type of operation
> (a repository diff which adds empty files) through effectively a single
> codepath. The bug is well understood; the fix extremely localized. There's
> no need to restart the soak period for this.
>
Sometimes single boolean toggle may affect a lot of code flow. In this
case the fix made in one of inner functions: diff algorithm. Which is
used in many places: merges and diffing.

> We also have a one-week soak period extension as part of our policy:
> because this is a critical bugfix, *if* we were currently in our final week
> of soak time, we would need to re-roll a new RC with the fix and extend our
> soak time by another week.
>
I'm fine to extend soak period because of this change instead of full
restart, but we need some kind of soak period extension.

-- 
Ivan Zhakov
CTO | VisualSVN | http://www.visualsvn.com
Received on 2013-05-20 14:46:12 CEST

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