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

Re: Time to branch 1.9

From: Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2014 23:18:03 +0100

On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann
<stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 7 November 2014 17:57, Stefan Fuhrmann <stefan.fuhrmann_at_wandisco.com>
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Ivan Zhakov <ivan_at_visualsvn.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 7 November 2014 03:00, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Forward progress is the goal. To *hold back* change, then you must
>> >> > veto.
>> >> >
>> >> I agree with that goal but not at the cost of possible massive data
>> >> corruptions in upgraded repositories. "There will always be bugs" ((c)
>> >> brane),
>> >> but we are currently *ripping out the revprop caching feature in the
>> >> patch
>> >> release*! [4].
>> >
>> >
>> > Let's not repeat the revprop caching debacle. In Berlin this year,
>> > you told us that you had identified issues with it and decided to
>> > disable it in VisualSVN. Had you told us before 1.8, we might
>> > have found that the underlying infrastructure is too restrictive.
>>
>> Are you trying to say that I did know the particular fatal issues
>> in the revprop caching before the 1.8 release? You are totally wrong,
>> if yes. Don't know if something like this is possible at Wandisco.
>> But this is absolutely not possible at VisualSVN.
>>
>> Also, I'm not that smart, for sure. I just have had a suspicion
>> that something is internally wrong with that feature by looking
>> through your commits. That's why this feature is not enabled by
>> default in the product I'm responsible for. I didn't have strong
>> arguments against the revprop caching feature at that time.
>
>
> If my memory fails me here, then I sincerely want to apologize.
> This is what I remember: In a group, we were just discussing
> the premisses of f7 at that time, like "reasonable server config".
> That lead you to the statement that you had identified "alignment
> issues" with revprop caching and ultimately disabled it in VisualSVN.

This long standoff is unfortunate and costly (time consuming), and
it's quite painful for the community. But what really saddens me is to
see that there is no longer a constructive chemistry between the two
of you.

I fondly remember the Berlin hackathons in 2012 and 2013
(unfortunately I couldn't make it in 2014), where both of you where
working together so constructively and enthusiastically on all sorts
of fascinating problems (mostly about performance and scalability).
There was this great atmosphere where the two of you (and others) were
throwing ideas around, thinking out loud, drawing sketches on the
whiteboard, listening to each other and trying to find solutions for
each other's problems, ...

I wish you guys would somehow find back that sparkle, and start
pulling in the same direction again.

Ivan and Stefan, I have great respect for both of you. You have done
great efforts for making Subversion better. But please come out of the
trenches (sorry, a bit too much World War I commemorations lately
:-)), and start thinking how we can arrive at some compromise.

-- 
Johan
Received on 2014-11-07 23:18:56 CET

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