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...@hyrumwright.org> on 2009/05/29 21:54:58 UTC
Re: svn commit: r37902 - trunk
There are a couple of fixes already merged to 1.6.x which fix bugs
which we've been hearing about a lot lately (I'm looking at you,
r37894). If nobody objects, I'd like to cut 1.6.3 early this upcoming
Wednesday, in an effort to get these fixes out there quickly. I
realize this comes pretty quickly on the heals of 1.6.2, but I feel
the fixes are important enough to do a quick release.
Accordingly, please review and vote for pending items in STATUS, so we
can include any additional fixes as well.
-Hyrum
On May 29, 2009, at 4:44 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> Author: hwright
> Date: Fri May 29 14:44:48 2009
> New Revision: 37902
>
> Log:
> * CHANGES:
> New section for 1.6.3, populated with merges to the 1.6.x branch.
>
> Modified:
> trunk/CHANGES
>
> Modified: trunk/CHANGES
> URL: http://svn.collab.net/viewvc/svn/trunk/CHANGES?pathrev=37902&r1=37901&r2=37902
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =
> =
> ======================================================================
> --- trunk/CHANGES Fri May 29 14:27:59 2009 (r37901)
> +++ trunk/CHANGES Fri May 29 14:44:48 2009 (r37902)
> @@ -1,3 +1,28 @@
> +Version 1.6.3
> +(?? Jun 2009, from /branches/1.6.x)
> +http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/tags/1.6.3
> +
> + User-visible changes:
> + * fix segfault in WC->URL copy (r37646, -56)
> + * let 'svnadmin load' tolerate mergeinfo with "\r\n" (r37768)
> + * make svnsync normalize svn:* props to LF line endings (issue
> #3404)
> + * better integration with external merge tools (r36178)
> + * return a friendly error message for 'svn diff' (r37735)
> + * update dsvn.el for 1.6 (r37774)
> + * don't allow setting of props on out-of-date dirs under neon
> (r37745)
> + * improve BASH completion (r36450, -52, -70, -79, -538)
> + * improve some DAV-based error messages (issue #3414)
> + * always show tree conflicts with 'svn st' (issue #3382)
> + * improve correctness of 'svn mergeinfo' (issue #3126)
> + * decrease the amount of memory needed for large commits (r37894,
> -6)
> + * fixed: potential segfault with noop file merges (r37779)
> + * fixed: incorrect output with 'svn blame -g' (r37719, -23, -41)
> + * fixed: bindings don't load FS libs when module search enabled
> (issue #3413)
> + * fixed: potential abort() in the working copy library (r37857)
> +
> + Developer-visible changes:
> +
> +
> Version 1.6.2
> (09 May 2009, from /branches/1.6.x)
> http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/tags/1.6.2
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=495&dsMessageId=2356989
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2356992
Re: svn commit: r37902 - trunk
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@hyrumwright.org>.
On May 31, 2009, at 4:43 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>
> The "1.6.2 tarballs up for signing/testing" thread was started on
> 2009-05-07 16:49 UTC, so I'm +1 for creating 1.6.3 tarball 30 days
> later, i.e. on 2009-06-06 :) .
Yes, I realize this and all, buy why *30* days? Why not 26 or 32 or
29.333333? I'm just wondering what the reason for the magic 30-day
number (and the subsequent change from our Wednesday release cycle) is.
(If I appear to be stubborn on this issue, it's because I probably
am. Wednesdays have worked historically, and I'm going for the
principle of least surprise for other testers and signers. This
doesn't mean I can be persuaded to change, but simply that I'm looking
for a good reason to do so---and haven't heard it yet. Someone tell
me if I'm being too draconian. :) )
As for this weekend, I again remind folks that I'll be mostly afk from
June 6 - June 16, so we'd also need to get a volunteer to do the RMing
if we cut a release after this Friday.
-Hyrum
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2358853
Re: svn commit: r37902 - trunk
Posted by Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Ar...@GMail.Com>.
2009-05-30 17:45:15 Hyrum K. Wright napisał(a):
>
> On May 30, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>
> > 2009-05-30 14:20:12 Hyrum K. Wright napisał(a):
> >>
> >> On May 29, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum@hyrumwright.org
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> On May 29, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> 2009-05-29 23:54:58 Hyrum K. Wright napisał(a):
> >>>>>> There are a couple of fixes already merged to 1.6.x which fix
> >>>>>> bugs
> >>>>>> which we've been hearing about a lot lately (I'm looking at you,
> >>>>>> r37894). If nobody objects, I'd like to cut 1.6.3 early this
> >>>>>> upcoming
> >>>>>> Wednesday, in an effort to get these fixes out there quickly. I
> >>>>>> realize this comes pretty quickly on the heals of 1.6.2, but I
> >>>>>> feel
> >>>>>> the fixes are important enough to do a quick release.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> IMHO it would be better to release 1.6.3 30 days after the release
> >>>>> of 1.6.2.
> >>>>
> >>>> Would you care to #define that magic number? :)
> >>>
> >>> Barring some kind of data loss bug, there is something to be said
> >>> for
> >>> just sticking to a rhythm. I agree that some of the fixes since
> >>> 1.6.2
> >>> are particularly high value, so I would not object to a release next
> >>> week. That said, I also think it could wait another week or 2 as
> >>> planned to see what other fixes get in and to allow for proper
> >>> review
> >>> of anything else.
> >>>
> >>> There was that thread on the problem with copy, as an example. Will
> >>> it be fixed in the next week? I'd guess no, but maybe it is getting
> >>> some attention now. Were a fix to come in say in a week it sure
> >>> would
> >>> be nice to get it in to 1.6.3 (as well as a 1.5.x release).
> >>>
> >>> Anyway, no objections from me, just saying that I also think there
> >>> is
> >>> merit in sticking with the "plan".
> >>
> >> The "plan" has always been a bit loosely defined, but I've generally
> >> been going with 6-8 week point releases. In this case, it seems like
> >> lots of people have been hit by the "commit takes too much memory"
> >> bug, for which we believe we have a fix already merged to 1.6.x.
> >> That's the primary reason why I'd want to do a 1.6.3 next week, since
> >> it's a real issue that has been hindering people's ability to use
> >> Subversion.
> >>
> >> That being said, I agree that there is a real cost to cutting a
> >> release, and we should try to avoid too frequent releases. I was
> >> really just wondering why rolling the tarball on June 5 would be to
> >> much different (from Arfrever's perspective) than rolling it on
> >> June 3.
> >
> > Subversion 1.6.2 was released on 2009-05-11 11:55 UTC, so 30 days
> > later
> > is 2009-06-10.
>
> Meh. Well, from my perspective it's when we create the release
> tarball that matters, rather than the nondeterministic amount of time
> it requires for us to collect sigs. Fixes that went into 1.6.x on
> 2009-05-09 aren't part of the 1.6.2 release, and the magic rev
> certainly didn't happen on 2009-05-11. (I'm not saying this is the
> only way to look at it; your perspective is valid from a users point-
> of-view, but as an RM, I care about when we create the tarball, not
> when it is announced.)
The "1.6.2 tarballs up for signing/testing" thread was started on
2009-05-07 16:49 UTC, so I'm +1 for creating 1.6.3 tarball 30 days
later, i.e. on 2009-06-06 :) .
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
Re: svn commit: r37902 - trunk
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@hyrumwright.org>.
On May 30, 2009, at 10:08 AM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2009-05-30 14:20:12 Hyrum K. Wright napisał(a):
>>
>> On May 29, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum@hyrumwright.org
>>>> wrote:
>>>> On May 29, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 2009-05-29 23:54:58 Hyrum K. Wright napisał(a):
>>>>>> There are a couple of fixes already merged to 1.6.x which fix
>>>>>> bugs
>>>>>> which we've been hearing about a lot lately (I'm looking at you,
>>>>>> r37894). If nobody objects, I'd like to cut 1.6.3 early this
>>>>>> upcoming
>>>>>> Wednesday, in an effort to get these fixes out there quickly. I
>>>>>> realize this comes pretty quickly on the heals of 1.6.2, but I
>>>>>> feel
>>>>>> the fixes are important enough to do a quick release.
>>>>>
>>>>> IMHO it would be better to release 1.6.3 30 days after the release
>>>>> of 1.6.2.
>>>>
>>>> Would you care to #define that magic number? :)
>>>
>>> Barring some kind of data loss bug, there is something to be said
>>> for
>>> just sticking to a rhythm. I agree that some of the fixes since
>>> 1.6.2
>>> are particularly high value, so I would not object to a release next
>>> week. That said, I also think it could wait another week or 2 as
>>> planned to see what other fixes get in and to allow for proper
>>> review
>>> of anything else.
>>>
>>> There was that thread on the problem with copy, as an example. Will
>>> it be fixed in the next week? I'd guess no, but maybe it is getting
>>> some attention now. Were a fix to come in say in a week it sure
>>> would
>>> be nice to get it in to 1.6.3 (as well as a 1.5.x release).
>>>
>>> Anyway, no objections from me, just saying that I also think there
>>> is
>>> merit in sticking with the "plan".
>>
>> The "plan" has always been a bit loosely defined, but I've generally
>> been going with 6-8 week point releases. In this case, it seems like
>> lots of people have been hit by the "commit takes too much memory"
>> bug, for which we believe we have a fix already merged to 1.6.x.
>> That's the primary reason why I'd want to do a 1.6.3 next week, since
>> it's a real issue that has been hindering people's ability to use
>> Subversion.
>>
>> That being said, I agree that there is a real cost to cutting a
>> release, and we should try to avoid too frequent releases. I was
>> really just wondering why rolling the tarball on June 5 would be to
>> much different (from Arfrever's perspective) than rolling it on
>> June 3.
>
> Subversion 1.6.2 was released on 2009-05-11 11:55 UTC, so 30 days
> later
> is 2009-06-10.
Meh. Well, from my perspective it's when we create the release
tarball that matters, rather than the nondeterministic amount of time
it requires for us to collect sigs. Fixes that went into 1.6.x on
2009-05-09 aren't part of the 1.6.2 release, and the magic rev
certainly didn't happen on 2009-05-11. (I'm not saying this is the
only way to look at it; your perspective is valid from a users point-
of-view, but as an RM, I care about when we create the tarball, not
when it is announced.)
Oh, and I still don't see a good rationale for that particular date.
Do you see a particular fix getting into 1.6.x between June 3 and June
10?
-Hyrum
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2357132
Re: svn commit: r37902 - trunk
Posted by Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Ar...@GMail.Com>.
2009-05-30 14:20:12 Hyrum K. Wright napisał(a):
>
> On May 29, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum@hyrumwright.org
> > > wrote:
> >> On May 29, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 2009-05-29 23:54:58 Hyrum K. Wright napisał(a):
> >>>> There are a couple of fixes already merged to 1.6.x which fix bugs
> >>>> which we've been hearing about a lot lately (I'm looking at you,
> >>>> r37894). If nobody objects, I'd like to cut 1.6.3 early this
> >>>> upcoming
> >>>> Wednesday, in an effort to get these fixes out there quickly. I
> >>>> realize this comes pretty quickly on the heals of 1.6.2, but I feel
> >>>> the fixes are important enough to do a quick release.
> >>>
> >>> IMHO it would be better to release 1.6.3 30 days after the release
> >>> of 1.6.2.
> >>
> >> Would you care to #define that magic number? :)
> >
> > Barring some kind of data loss bug, there is something to be said for
> > just sticking to a rhythm. I agree that some of the fixes since 1.6.2
> > are particularly high value, so I would not object to a release next
> > week. That said, I also think it could wait another week or 2 as
> > planned to see what other fixes get in and to allow for proper review
> > of anything else.
> >
> > There was that thread on the problem with copy, as an example. Will
> > it be fixed in the next week? I'd guess no, but maybe it is getting
> > some attention now. Were a fix to come in say in a week it sure would
> > be nice to get it in to 1.6.3 (as well as a 1.5.x release).
> >
> > Anyway, no objections from me, just saying that I also think there is
> > merit in sticking with the "plan".
>
> The "plan" has always been a bit loosely defined, but I've generally
> been going with 6-8 week point releases. In this case, it seems like
> lots of people have been hit by the "commit takes too much memory"
> bug, for which we believe we have a fix already merged to 1.6.x.
> That's the primary reason why I'd want to do a 1.6.3 next week, since
> it's a real issue that has been hindering people's ability to use
> Subversion.
>
> That being said, I agree that there is a real cost to cutting a
> release, and we should try to avoid too frequent releases. I was
> really just wondering why rolling the tarball on June 5 would be to
> much different (from Arfrever's perspective) than rolling it on June 3.
Subversion 1.6.2 was released on 2009-05-11 11:55 UTC, so 30 days later
is 2009-06-10.
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
Re: svn commit: r37902 - trunk
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@hyrumwright.org>.
On May 29, 2009, at 8:45 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum@hyrumwright.org
> > wrote:
>> On May 29, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2009-05-29 23:54:58 Hyrum K. Wright napisał(a):
>>>> There are a couple of fixes already merged to 1.6.x which fix bugs
>>>> which we've been hearing about a lot lately (I'm looking at you,
>>>> r37894). If nobody objects, I'd like to cut 1.6.3 early this
>>>> upcoming
>>>> Wednesday, in an effort to get these fixes out there quickly. I
>>>> realize this comes pretty quickly on the heals of 1.6.2, but I feel
>>>> the fixes are important enough to do a quick release.
>>>
>>> IMHO it would be better to release 1.6.3 30 days after the release
>>> of 1.6.2.
>>
>> Would you care to #define that magic number? :)
>
> Barring some kind of data loss bug, there is something to be said for
> just sticking to a rhythm. I agree that some of the fixes since 1.6.2
> are particularly high value, so I would not object to a release next
> week. That said, I also think it could wait another week or 2 as
> planned to see what other fixes get in and to allow for proper review
> of anything else.
>
> There was that thread on the problem with copy, as an example. Will
> it be fixed in the next week? I'd guess no, but maybe it is getting
> some attention now. Were a fix to come in say in a week it sure would
> be nice to get it in to 1.6.3 (as well as a 1.5.x release).
>
> Anyway, no objections from me, just saying that I also think there is
> merit in sticking with the "plan".
The "plan" has always been a bit loosely defined, but I've generally
been going with 6-8 week point releases. In this case, it seems like
lots of people have been hit by the "commit takes too much memory"
bug, for which we believe we have a fix already merged to 1.6.x.
That's the primary reason why I'd want to do a 1.6.3 next week, since
it's a real issue that has been hindering people's ability to use
Subversion.
That being said, I agree that there is a real cost to cutting a
release, and we should try to avoid too frequent releases. I was
really just wondering why rolling the tarball on June 5 would be to
much different (from Arfrever's perspective) than rolling it on June 3.
(One side node: I'm going to be afk, with intermittent 'net access
from June 6 - June 16, so if a release happens during that time, we'll
have to designate someone to do it.)
-Hyrum
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2357108
Re: svn commit: r37902 - trunk
Posted by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, May 29, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <hy...@hyrumwright.org> wrote:
> On May 29, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
>
>> 2009-05-29 23:54:58 Hyrum K. Wright napisał(a):
>>> There are a couple of fixes already merged to 1.6.x which fix bugs
>>> which we've been hearing about a lot lately (I'm looking at you,
>>> r37894). If nobody objects, I'd like to cut 1.6.3 early this
>>> upcoming
>>> Wednesday, in an effort to get these fixes out there quickly. I
>>> realize this comes pretty quickly on the heals of 1.6.2, but I feel
>>> the fixes are important enough to do a quick release.
>>
>> IMHO it would be better to release 1.6.3 30 days after the release
>> of 1.6.2.
>
> Would you care to #define that magic number? :)
Barring some kind of data loss bug, there is something to be said for
just sticking to a rhythm. I agree that some of the fixes since 1.6.2
are particularly high value, so I would not object to a release next
week. That said, I also think it could wait another week or 2 as
planned to see what other fixes get in and to allow for proper review
of anything else.
There was that thread on the problem with copy, as an example. Will
it be fixed in the next week? I'd guess no, but maybe it is getting
some attention now. Were a fix to come in say in a week it sure would
be nice to get it in to 1.6.3 (as well as a 1.5.x release).
Anyway, no objections from me, just saying that I also think there is
merit in sticking with the "plan".
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2357038
Re: svn commit: r37902 - trunk
Posted by "Hyrum K. Wright" <hy...@hyrumwright.org>.
On May 29, 2009, at 5:44 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis wrote:
> 2009-05-29 23:54:58 Hyrum K. Wright napisał(a):
>> There are a couple of fixes already merged to 1.6.x which fix bugs
>> which we've been hearing about a lot lately (I'm looking at you,
>> r37894). If nobody objects, I'd like to cut 1.6.3 early this
>> upcoming
>> Wednesday, in an effort to get these fixes out there quickly. I
>> realize this comes pretty quickly on the heals of 1.6.2, but I feel
>> the fixes are important enough to do a quick release.
>
> IMHO it would be better to release 1.6.3 30 days after the release
> of 1.6.2.
Would you care to #define that magic number? :)
-Hyrum
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2357027
Re: svn commit: r37902 - trunk
Posted by Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis <Ar...@GMail.Com>.
2009-05-29 23:54:58 Hyrum K. Wright napisał(a):
> There are a couple of fixes already merged to 1.6.x which fix bugs
> which we've been hearing about a lot lately (I'm looking at you,
> r37894). If nobody objects, I'd like to cut 1.6.3 early this upcoming
> Wednesday, in an effort to get these fixes out there quickly. I
> realize this comes pretty quickly on the heals of 1.6.2, but I feel
> the fixes are important enough to do a quick release.
IMHO it would be better to release 1.6.3 30 days after the release of 1.6.2.
--
Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis