[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.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.