[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: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 12:08:03 +0100 (BST)

Ben Reser wrote:

> [...] 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.

No, that's not fair. Don't imply that Ivan is to blame for our lack of test signatures.

[...]
>> 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.† [...] why [...]† Why [...]† Why did you not bring this
> up when 1.9.0-alpha1 was being prepared to release?

I understand your frustration, Ben, but I don't think it's helpful to nag Ivan about why he didn't continue to push his concerns in the past.

Can we do two things at once? (1) Discuss what level of stability of FSFS we should eventually release in 1.9, in a *separate email thread*; and ...

>> 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.
>
[...]
> 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?

... also (2) Decide what to do in the short term with this alpha release.

Here's a thought about what to do with this alpha release.

Part of Ivan's concern is the maintenance burden and the stability of the FSFS changes, and alpha testing will not really help us to reveal or understand those issues. While we discuss those issues in a separate thread, I would suggest that if alpha testing does not reveal any issues related to stability or maintenance of the server, then we learn nothing about the server changes, but that does not reduce the usefulness of the alpha testing in providing feedback about *other* changes.

Ivan, would you agree with that?

- Julian
Received on 2014-04-07 13:08:44 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.