[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: Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2015 16:14:27 +0200

On Fri, Jul 3, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> 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

FWIW: I'm on holiday next two weeks, so might not be able to deliver a
Windows signature (it might be possible, but depends on the hotel wifi
etc).

-- 
Johan
Received on 2015-07-03 16:15:20 CEST

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