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

Re: Potential regression: high server-side memory consumption during import (was: Subversion 1.10 RC1?)

From: Evgeny Kotkov <evgeny.kotkov_at_visualsvn.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 21:02:02 +0300

Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> writes:

> I'd rather ship 1.10.0 at the prospected release date followed closely
> by 1.10.1 to fix bugs such as these, than delay general access to 1.10.0
> even further.

While I do not have significant objections against such plan, I find the
idea of shipping a performance feature that causes a massive slowdown
instead of an improvement somewhat controversial. (In other words,
I am -0 for that.)

> You may not have realized this, but I have been waiting for 1.10.0 to
> happen for *over a year* https://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2017-01/0043.shtml
> For all this time, I have wanted the conflict resolver to get real world
> exposure because I need feedback from users out there to improve it.
> I kept mostly quiet because I didn't want to push too hard for this
> release all by myself because of the relatively high share of burden
> this would imply. So I waited for activity from the community to make
> it happen as a true collective effort.

Not too sure about how this is connected to the soak period and to the
release process — speaking of which, I would say that your e-mail may
discourage people from reporting issues during the soak period.

> If this one bug really bothers you enough to hold the planned release back
> it makes me wonder why you didn't push for a fix much earlier. We have had
> plenty of time.

I haven't been and am not pushing for a fix. Rather than that, I have just
included the additional information about the problem with a comment that
it might be viable to look into before the GA release.

Moreover, I reported the issue at the very moment I found it with an edge-case
reproduction. Once I was asked to bisect for a specific revision, I should
have probably stated that I won't have time to do that. But I have been
thinking that I would be able to find some. When I stumbled across it again,
I found the revision and the simple reproduction — but as it seems, this
hasn't been the most appropriate time for including these new details.

Putting all that aside, I wouldn't say that it is productive to discuss issues
in such way. In my opinion, we should be doing it the other way around by
actually encouraging reports of various problems during the soak period.

Evgeny Kotkov
Received on 2018-03-02 19:02:26 CET

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.