On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 09:02:02PM +0300, Evgeny Kotkov wrote:
> 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.
I am not trying to discourage people from reporting and fixing problems.
I am sorry if what I wrote could be interpreted in this way.
I am just questioning the usefulness of halting the presses and restarting
the soak for another month for something that isn't a security / data
corruption issue. I anticipate that problems of similar severity to this
one will still be discovered after we release 1.10.0, regardless of
whether we release 1.10.0 at end of March or later.
Though maybe my idea of the impact of this bug is wrong?
If this really makes some repositories entirely unusable with authz enabled
then of course it should be considered a blocker. Is it this severe?
Received on 2018-03-02 19:21:20 CET