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

Re: 1.9.0-alpha2 up for testing/signing

From: Ben Reser <ben_at_reser.org>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:45:21 -0700

On 4/4/14, 5:02 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> And here is list of people voted for Unix release over the last year:
> Branko
> Philip
> Stefan Fuhrmann
> Julian
> Stefan Sperling
> C. Michael Pilato
> I had to vote for both Windows and Unix for 1.7.13 and 1.8.3, because
> we cannot get Unix signatures within week for very critical security
> release.

That wasn't the point of me providing the list of people who had voted for
Windows. My point was to show that out of the 5 people who have been voting
for Windows releases, 2 voted, 1 couldn't vote due to not having a current
setup (but raised no objections to the alpha), one hasn't said anything and you
stayed silent about your objections until recently. That does not constitute a
lack of interest in my opinion.

However, to your point. The bar to getting someone to vote for Unix is much
lower than for Windows. I voted for a Windows release back towards the end of
2012 because we couldn't find someone with a Windows setup. It took me the
better part of a week to get a working setup. I still ended up with a setup
that I couldn't use the next time. At least two of the people in the Unix list
have worked on the Windows side in the past, but don't anymore. There's a
reason for it.

But none of that has anything to do with the issue at hand. Is there a lack of
interest in releasing an 1.9.0 alpha? The answer I pretty clearly no in my
opinion. I think the fact that nobody other than you is asserting that is
strong evidence. But given that we need 3 Windows votes and the only person
that seems to have a functional Windows setup who could vote right now seems to
be you.

Given our current policies that's essentially placing you in the position of
being able to veto moving forward with this.

> First time I raised my concerns about fsfs7 at SVN Hackathon 2013 in
> Berlin and decision
> was to implement *all* format changes in separate FS backend (FSX).
> FSX was implemented, but some of significant
> changes was copy-pasted to FSFS. Increasing code duplication significantly btw.

Right and Stefan Fuhrmann did implement all the changes on FSX and then
realized some of the changes could be made to FSFS. That seemed like a logical
thing to do to me.

> I've raised my concerns again on mailing list:
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/201311.mbox/%3CCABw-3YdV1YX0yU3cuWD8syPGpQxkLBUe=6h_bMkuBfA+vQf9XA@mail.gmail.com%3E
> I think we shouldn't change FSFS disk format at least in Subversion
> 1.9.0, before we get some feedback about FSX ideas from the wild.
> Because we can fix almost any bug in future, but it's extremely costly
> to deal with on disk format mistakes.
> But log-addressing branch was pushed to trunk.

Okay I did forget about this conversation. But you seemed to be ok with
improved testing. Stefan agreed to implement the testing. The conversation
turned into a discussion about how effective that testing would be and then
died out. If you weren't satisfied with the discussion then why did you wait
until now to bring the topic up? Why have you waited a month to bring this up
with a pending 1.9.0-alpha2 waiting to be released? Why did you not bring this
up when 1.9.0-alpha1 was being prepared to release?

> My opinion on Subversion 1.9.0 is the following: release Subversion
> 1.9.0 ASAP without FSFS format change. We have many FSFS performance
> improvements in trunk that doesn't require format change.
> I think that cost of maintaining disk format backward compatibility
> and code destabilization doesn't worth the real benefits that users
> get from fsfs7 performance improvements. On the other side: if
> log-addressing and related stuff are so cool and rock-solid, users
> always can switch to FSX and fully benefit from this new stuff.

I guess all I can say is that I wish we'd had this discussion completely in
November and resolved it. I'd like to see 1.9.0 in June (or earlier) but I
don't know how realistic that is now that you want us to rip out significant
amounts of work.

Unfortunately though, none of this discussion helps with the issue at hand.
What exactly do we need to do to make you happy with a 1.9.0-alpha release? Is
there anything we can do? Is removing the format 7 code enough? Or if that
was removed would you still be against it since you don't think it's useful?

Bottom line, what do you want to do here?
Received on 2014-04-04 18:45:38 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.