You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> on 2008/10/30 17:03:41 UTC
Reminder: Branch 1.6 next Wednesday
There's been a bit of discussion in response to my mail of last week about
branching 1.6 on Wednesday (see
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0818.shtml). However, I haven't heard
any screaming complaints or needs to push the date back, so I'm still planning
on branching 1.6 on Nov. 5, 1700 UTC.
As I mentioned earlier, if people feel they need another week or so be get stuff
in for 1.6, I don't think that's too much of a problem, but please make it known
soon!
-Hyrum
Re: Reminder: Branch 1.6 next Wednesday
Posted by Joe Swatosh <jo...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> There's been a bit of discussion in response to my mail of last week about
>> branching 1.6 on Wednesday (see
>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0818.shtml). However, I haven't heard
>> any screaming complaints or needs to push the date back, so I'm still planning
>> on branching 1.6 on Nov. 5, 1700 UTC.
>>
>> As I mentioned earlier, if people feel they need another week or so be get stuff
>> in for 1.6, I don't think that's too much of a problem, but please make it known
>> soon!
>
> There is still several days until Nov. 5, but based on some simple
> testing of trunk yesterday, I do not think the tree conflicts code is
> ready for release. So if we do not think we should plan on fixing
> stuff after we branch, then I do not think we are ready to branch.
>
> Also, I am not sure what the state of the bindings are at present. It
> sounded in another thread like the Ruby bindings have been broken
> since adding SQLite. JavaHL seems to be OK, but there is still some
I haven't been able to run the Ruby bindings tests since r33730 (Merge
the fs-rep-sharing branch to trunk), but to be fair, not all the
problems are in the bindings. There are some issues with the tests
themselves. I hate committing without have a successful test run, but
I may have to just try for some incremental improvements.
--
Joe Swatosh
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Reminder: Branch 1.6 next Wednesday
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 1:03 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> There's been a bit of discussion in response to my mail of last week about
> branching 1.6 on Wednesday (see
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0818.shtml). However, I haven't heard
> any screaming complaints or needs to push the date back, so I'm still planning
> on branching 1.6 on Nov. 5, 1700 UTC.
>
> As I mentioned earlier, if people feel they need another week or so be get stuff
> in for 1.6, I don't think that's too much of a problem, but please make it known
> soon!
There is still several days until Nov. 5, but based on some simple
testing of trunk yesterday, I do not think the tree conflicts code is
ready for release. So if we do not think we should plan on fixing
stuff after we branch, then I do not think we are ready to branch.
Also, I am not sure what the state of the bindings are at present. It
sounded in another thread like the Ruby bindings have been broken
since adding SQLite. JavaHL seems to be OK, but there is still some
new tree conflict stuff that needs to be exposed. The main thing I
had planned on testing was the new notifications from tree conflicts
(I was going to add the support into Subclipse). It looks like that
still needs to be added to JavaHL.
I will update the TODO
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Reminder: Branch 1.6 next Wednesday
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
Julian Foad wrote:
> We're still working on tree conflicts and I'm not confident that it's
> just one or two things left to do - we don't have a clear list of what's
> still needed.
>
> How can we best put some tight bounds on what's needed? Here's one idea:
> write out one use case from start to finish, and work it through with
> the present code, looking for problems where documenting a work-around
> is the most expedient way, and for where code fixes are essential. I'll
> start that.
That sounds like a good idea. Compartmentalizing tasks, and then getting the
low hanging fruit sounds very reasonable for a near branch date. For both tree
conflicts and other pending stuff, let's figure out what we can deliver here and
now, and then work on getting that stuff up to quality.
This may sound like a broken record at this point, but let's not repeat the 1.5
mistake of creating a release which had too much too late (and arguably too many
bugs).
-Hyrum
Re: Reminder: Branch 1.6 next Wednesday
Posted by "Neels J. Hofmeyr" <ne...@elego.de>.
Julian Foad wrote:
> How can we best put some tight bounds on what's needed? Here's one idea:
> write out one use case from start to finish, and work it through with
> the present code, looking for problems where documenting a work-around
> is the most expedient way, and for where code fixes are essential. I'll
> start that.
That sounds perfect. Great idea! It's sort of a concept of how it works, to
show to everyone, and they'll eventually say "aah, so *that's* how it's
supposed to work." :)
~Neels
Re: Reminder: Branch 1.6 next Wednesday
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 2:56 PM, Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 12:03 -0500, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> There's been a bit of discussion in response to my mail of last week about
>> branching 1.6 on Wednesday (see
>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0818.shtml). However, I haven't heard
>> any screaming complaints or needs to push the date back, so I'm still planning
>> on branching 1.6 on Nov. 5, 1700 UTC.
>>
>> As I mentioned earlier, if people feel they need another week or so be get stuff
>> in for 1.6, I don't think that's too much of a problem, but please make it known
>> soon!
>
> I've just added "svn resolved must act on a victim path, not a parent
> path" to the TODO-1.6 file. The problem Mark noticed (which reminded us
> of that) is another one and I would expect more.
>
> We're still working on tree conflicts and I'm not confident that it's
> just one or two things left to do - we don't have a clear list of what's
> still needed.
>
> How can we best put some tight bounds on what's needed? Here's one idea:
> write out one use case from start to finish, and work it through with
> the present code, looking for problems where documenting a work-around
> is the most expedient way, and for where code fixes are essential. I'll
> start that.
I think manually running through the use cases would help. I was
seeing some bizarre working copy stuff yesterday but given that tree
conflicts were essentially making the WC invalid, it is hard to know
how much it was all caused by that one problem.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Reminder: Branch 1.6 next Wednesday
Posted by Julian Foad <ju...@btopenworld.com>.
On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 12:03 -0500, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> There's been a bit of discussion in response to my mail of last week about
> branching 1.6 on Wednesday (see
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0818.shtml). However, I haven't heard
> any screaming complaints or needs to push the date back, so I'm still planning
> on branching 1.6 on Nov. 5, 1700 UTC.
>
> As I mentioned earlier, if people feel they need another week or so be get stuff
> in for 1.6, I don't think that's too much of a problem, but please make it known
> soon!
I've just added "svn resolved must act on a victim path, not a parent
path" to the TODO-1.6 file. The problem Mark noticed (which reminded us
of that) is another one and I would expect more.
We're still working on tree conflicts and I'm not confident that it's
just one or two things left to do - we don't have a clear list of what's
still needed.
How can we best put some tight bounds on what's needed? Here's one idea:
write out one use case from start to finish, and work it through with
the present code, looking for problems where documenting a work-around
is the most expedient way, and for where code fixes are essential. I'll
start that.
- Julian
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Reminder: Branch 1.6 next Wednesday
Posted by David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net>.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:21 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> David Glasser wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
>> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>> David Glasser wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
>>>> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>>> There's been a bit of discussion in response to my mail of last week about
>>>>> branching 1.6 on Wednesday (see
>>>>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0818.shtml). However, I haven't heard
>>>>> any screaming complaints or needs to push the date back, so I'm still planning
>>>>> on branching 1.6 on Nov. 5, 1700 UTC.
>>>>>
>>>>> As I mentioned earlier, if people feel they need another week or so be get stuff
>>>>> in for 1.6, I don't think that's too much of a problem, but please make it known
>>>>> soon!
>>>> I assume you're aware of my opinions on the current state of FSFS and
>>>> its releasibility. (This doesn't necessary mean it can't get fixed on
>>>> the branch, of course, but that's more effort.)
>>> I know about your concerns about rep-sharing performance, and I've got a patch
>>> to make rep-sharing configurable. I seem to recall you mentioning a few things
>>> about FSFS over the past couple of weeks, but could you enumerate them here,
>>> just so we've got a good checklist of items to tackle? (Or, perhaps put them in
>>> TODO-1.6?)
>>
>> It wasn't just performance (and the sha issue): there were a bunch of
>> serious concurrency bugs that will lead to repository corruption if
>> not fixed. I guess I can copy and paste into TODO-1.6.
>
> That'd be great, thanks.
r33965.
By the way, I hope that the concurrency issues that I found don't
exist in fs_base, but I'm not familiar enough with BDB
transactionality to know if that's the case. Has the fs_base code
been reviewed for the same concurrency issues? I assume that BDB
would be in better shape here because it's all one type of DB.
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Reminder: Branch 1.6 next Wednesday
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
David Glasser wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> David Glasser wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
>>> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>>> There's been a bit of discussion in response to my mail of last week about
>>>> branching 1.6 on Wednesday (see
>>>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0818.shtml). However, I haven't heard
>>>> any screaming complaints or needs to push the date back, so I'm still planning
>>>> on branching 1.6 on Nov. 5, 1700 UTC.
>>>>
>>>> As I mentioned earlier, if people feel they need another week or so be get stuff
>>>> in for 1.6, I don't think that's too much of a problem, but please make it known
>>>> soon!
>>> I assume you're aware of my opinions on the current state of FSFS and
>>> its releasibility. (This doesn't necessary mean it can't get fixed on
>>> the branch, of course, but that's more effort.)
>> I know about your concerns about rep-sharing performance, and I've got a patch
>> to make rep-sharing configurable. I seem to recall you mentioning a few things
>> about FSFS over the past couple of weeks, but could you enumerate them here,
>> just so we've got a good checklist of items to tackle? (Or, perhaps put them in
>> TODO-1.6?)
>
> It wasn't just performance (and the sha issue): there were a bunch of
> serious concurrency bugs that will lead to repository corruption if
> not fixed. I guess I can copy and paste into TODO-1.6.
That'd be great, thanks.
-Hyrum
Re: Reminder: Branch 1.6 next Wednesday
Posted by David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net>.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:13 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> David Glasser wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
>> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>> There's been a bit of discussion in response to my mail of last week about
>>> branching 1.6 on Wednesday (see
>>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0818.shtml). However, I haven't heard
>>> any screaming complaints or needs to push the date back, so I'm still planning
>>> on branching 1.6 on Nov. 5, 1700 UTC.
>>>
>>> As I mentioned earlier, if people feel they need another week or so be get stuff
>>> in for 1.6, I don't think that's too much of a problem, but please make it known
>>> soon!
>>
>> I assume you're aware of my opinions on the current state of FSFS and
>> its releasibility. (This doesn't necessary mean it can't get fixed on
>> the branch, of course, but that's more effort.)
>
> I know about your concerns about rep-sharing performance, and I've got a patch
> to make rep-sharing configurable. I seem to recall you mentioning a few things
> about FSFS over the past couple of weeks, but could you enumerate them here,
> just so we've got a good checklist of items to tackle? (Or, perhaps put them in
> TODO-1.6?)
It wasn't just performance (and the sha issue): there were a bunch of
serious concurrency bugs that will lead to repository corruption if
not fixed. I guess I can copy and paste into TODO-1.6.
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Reminder: Branch 1.6 next Wednesday
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@mail.utexas.edu>.
David Glasser wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> There's been a bit of discussion in response to my mail of last week about
>> branching 1.6 on Wednesday (see
>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0818.shtml). However, I haven't heard
>> any screaming complaints or needs to push the date back, so I'm still planning
>> on branching 1.6 on Nov. 5, 1700 UTC.
>>
>> As I mentioned earlier, if people feel they need another week or so be get stuff
>> in for 1.6, I don't think that's too much of a problem, but please make it known
>> soon!
>
> I assume you're aware of my opinions on the current state of FSFS and
> its releasibility. (This doesn't necessary mean it can't get fixed on
> the branch, of course, but that's more effort.)
I know about your concerns about rep-sharing performance, and I've got a patch
to make rep-sharing configurable. I seem to recall you mentioning a few things
about FSFS over the past couple of weeks, but could you enumerate them here,
just so we've got a good checklist of items to tackle? (Or, perhaps put them in
TODO-1.6?)
Thanks,
-Hyrum
Re: Reminder: Branch 1.6 next Wednesday
Posted by David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net>.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:59 AM, David Glasser
> <gl...@davidglasser.net> wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
>> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>> There's been a bit of discussion in response to my mail of last week about
>>> branching 1.6 on Wednesday (see
>>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0818.shtml). However, I haven't heard
>>> any screaming complaints or needs to push the date back, so I'm still planning
>>> on branching 1.6 on Nov. 5, 1700 UTC.
>>>
>>> As I mentioned earlier, if people feel they need another week or so be get stuff
>>> in for 1.6, I don't think that's too much of a problem, but please make it known
>>> soon!
>>
>> I assume you're aware of my opinions on the current state of FSFS and
>> its releasibility. (This doesn't necessary mean it can't get fixed on
>> the branch, of course, but that's more effort.)
>
> IMO, we should never "plan" on fixing things on the branch. If there
> is a plan to do so, then we shouldn't branch in the first place.
I would generally agree, but I am failing to put any real time into
the project these days, and am only really monitoring commits to
libsvn_fs_fs. I would absolutely object to a release of 1.6 from
trunk in its current state based on the FSFS situation, but if more
active developers think it is not worth delaying the branch over, I
would defer.
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Reminder: Branch 1.6 next Wednesday
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:59 AM, David Glasser
<gl...@davidglasser.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
> <hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>> There's been a bit of discussion in response to my mail of last week about
>> branching 1.6 on Wednesday (see
>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0818.shtml). However, I haven't heard
>> any screaming complaints or needs to push the date back, so I'm still planning
>> on branching 1.6 on Nov. 5, 1700 UTC.
>>
>> As I mentioned earlier, if people feel they need another week or so be get stuff
>> in for 1.6, I don't think that's too much of a problem, but please make it known
>> soon!
>
> I assume you're aware of my opinions on the current state of FSFS and
> its releasibility. (This doesn't necessary mean it can't get fixed on
> the branch, of course, but that's more effort.)
IMO, we should never "plan" on fixing things on the branch. If there
is a plan to do so, then we shouldn't branch in the first place.
Cheers,
-g
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Reminder: Branch 1.6 next Wednesday
Posted by David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net>.
On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
<hy...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> There's been a bit of discussion in response to my mail of last week about
> branching 1.6 on Wednesday (see
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2008-10/0818.shtml). However, I haven't heard
> any screaming complaints or needs to push the date back, so I'm still planning
> on branching 1.6 on Nov. 5, 1700 UTC.
>
> As I mentioned earlier, if people feel they need another week or so be get stuff
> in for 1.6, I don't think that's too much of a problem, but please make it known
> soon!
I assume you're aware of my opinions on the current state of FSFS and
its releasibility. (This doesn't necessary mean it can't get fixed on
the branch, of course, but that's more effort.)
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org