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

Re: Implement major FSFS performance related changes in the experimental FSX format

From: Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:34:43 +0200

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:07 PM, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:

> Mike,
> > At a minimum, the community needs to establish that this feature and its
> > side-effects are understood by more than just the one smart guy that
> wrote
> > it and the other smart guy who isn't a fan. Then, those who understand
> the
> > feature and its side-effects need to publicly weigh in on both the value
> > and the timing (1.9, FSFS rather than FSX, etc.) of the change.
> > How do you manage this discussion in the simplest way possible? Call for
> > a formal vote on removing the feature, asking that the extreme +1/-1
> votes
> > be presented only by folks who both understand the feature and have
> reviewed
> > the code. (Seems only fair to allow the status quo to remain the default
> > action.) Give the vote at least 72 weekday hours to allow time for code
> > review, and then put this topic behind you/us and move on.
> Since no one objected to this approach, I assume that there is a lazy
> consensus and I'm going to start a formal vote regarding the
> log-addressing feature early next week.
> I think it would be fair to call a 'Consensus Approval' vote [1,2] for
> leaving
> the log-addressing feature in the trunk. In other words, it will be
> required
> at least three binding '+1' votes (and no vetos) to leave the code in
> trunk.
> It will be also assumed that:
> a) +1 votes could be presented only by folks who both understand
> the log-addressing feature and have reviewed the code.
> b) a concrete technical justification showing why the change is bad
> (allows data to be corrupted, negatively affects performance, etc. )
> should be provided for a '-1' vote.
> Effectively, this vote will be similar to our 3-vote policy for branches
> but made a little later.
> What do you think about this plan for vote?

Hi Ivan,

Not being Mike, here is my opinion anyway: I'm +1 on your proposal.
In fact, I had planned to call for exactly that vote at some point mid-Oct
(so I could complete work on the other bits e.g. svnfsfs before that).

Due to the size of the features (plural), I think we should extend the
voting period to at least 2 weeks. This will give people who are new
to the code a chance to actually review it. I don't think there is any
point in rushing a decision at this stage of 1.9 "slippage".

-- Stefan^2.
Received on 2014-09-26 18:35:17 CEST

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