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

Re: Time to release Subversion 1.9.0-rc3?

From: Branko ─îibej <brane_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Jul 2015 14:23:17 +0200

On 03.07.2015 14:05, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> There are several changes merged to 1.9.x branch since 1.9.0-rc2:
> * r1686554, r1686557, r1686239, r1686541, r1686543, r1686802
> Fix 'svnadmin hotcopy' for read-only FSFS repositories
> Justification:
> Format 7 repositories could not be hotcopied without write access to
> the source repo - which is a regression vs. older formats. Because
> the new test case also uncovered another regression with hotcopying
> the rep-cache.db from r/o repos.
> * r1682714, r1682854, r1683126, r1683135, r1683290
> Fix segfaults in FSX's directory processing code.
> Justification:
> Despite its experimental state, FSX shall not segfault the server.
> * r1686478, r1686888, r1686984
> Make 'blame -g' work with old clients against new servers.
> Justification:
> Without this patch, old clients will "lose track" of what changes
> happened in -g mode and produce wrong / worse blames than against
> old servers.
> The output of 'blame -g' is only an approximation. However, the
> new server would cause much worse results in old clients especially
> in simple cases where lines of development are kept in close sync.
> * r1685085
> Install svnbench as part of 'make install'.
> Justification:
> svnbench moved from tools/ to subversion/ so it should be installed
> by default.
> * r1683378
> Prevent a possible FSFS repository corruption with power or network disk
> failures during 'svnadmin pack'.
> Justification:
> Repository corruption/data loss.
> * r1683303
> Resolve a race condition in some test suite cleanup code.
> Justification:
> Without this patch running the testsuite on bdb x svnserve consistently
> fails on at least some Windows test systems. bdb x serf sometimes
> triggers the same problem, but in far less cases.
> .
> This specific test -unlike other tests- cleans up its own environment a
> few times to retry some scenarios on the same paths.
> * r1684325, r1684344
> Fix an unintended doubling of error messages in 'svnadmin verify'
> without the --keep-going flag.
> Justification:
> Fixes a bug that was introduced in r1683311, which was
> already merged to 1.9.x.
> * r1684412
> Make JavaHL native code compile with a C++11 compiler.
> Justification:
> The upcoming MSVC14, part of Visual Studio 2015,
> supports user-defined literals, which means that
> trying to build JavaHL with VS2015 will fail.
> * r1684077
> Detect invalid svndiff data earlier.
> Justification:
> Do not waste memory on invalid user or server input.
> * r1684322
> Fix a minor omission in JavaHL's VersionExtended class:
> the dispose() and finalize() methods were missing.
> Justification:
> Without the dispose() method, the user of the VersionExtended
> class cannot avoid a memory leak in native memory.
> * r1684034
> Fix prop_tests.py#42 test failures with non-US default locale on
> Windows [1].
> Justification:
> Tests should not fail.
> * r1683311
> Make error reporting from svn_repos_verify_fs3 consistent
> with behaviour of svn_repos_verify_fs2 in 1.8.x.
> Justification:
> Errors from the FS implementation are squashed even in normal
> mode without --keep-going. See: http://s.apache.org/j9Z
> * r1683387
> Fix abort() in svn-status handler on platforms that doesn't support C99
> format specifiers for strftime(): %F and %z are new in C99 and C89
> compiler/runtime doesn't support them.
> Justification:
> Server-side crash in new small feature. Simple fix.
> * r1683071
> Document the meaning of "XFAIL" for users building from source.
> Justification:
> Answers a FAQ.
> These commits contain public API changes and the community guide
> states that such changes should be considered as potentially
> destabilizing.
> So maybe it's time to release RC3 and restart the soak period?

I was going to get the tarballs rolled during the week-end, yes. I don't
think this needs another soak restart, though; just an extension,
perhaps 2 weeks since we're close to the end of the current soak? I
think we've done a pretty thorough job of testing 1.9.0 by now.

-- Brane
Received on 2015-07-03 14:23:50 CEST

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