You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Mark Phippard <ma...@gmail.com> on 2015/10/09 20:21:18 UTC
Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Does anyone know if/when it is planned to update the ASF servers to
Subversion 1.9?
The Apache headers say it is still running 1.8.1. Is that true? Or is it
a patched version of 1.8.1 at least?
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
On 10.10.2015 10:14, Tony Stevenson wrote:
> What I will say is that:
>
> - if you guys produced a .deb package that did all the things above
> - this .deb was hosted in a repo we'd happily pull from
> - the subversion project were willing to support the upgrade process and were available if the fan was to meet the shit
> - you accept that if we feel we cannot resolve any issues without rolling back - we will do just that.
>
> If you can do this. You may well find us saying yes that much more easily.
>
> Please also remember that we have SLAs we have to work towards - so upgrades need be announced a minimum of 72hours prior, but the more the better.
>
> I am happy to continue this thread if you want to ask more questions. But the 'it must be a package' - 'from a repo we trust' - 'all changes managed by puppet' are firm policies that we will not shift from.
>
> So if you can work within those constraints we might be able to do something.
This is actually the sort of answer I was hoping for.
While we've had packaging scripts in our repo, these were never any kind
of priority. I don't think it makes sense to change that. But I also see
no reason not to maintain packages for our own use within the ASF somewhere.
Assuming a "trusted repo" is available somewhere in our infrastructure,
I'd be happy to have a go at producing a package for 1.9.x. I expect
we're able to test packages and deployments before going live, yes?
-- Brane
Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Posted by Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org>.
Bert,
Nothing has happened from an Infra perspective. We are inundated with other work, and while this is a nice ideal it is not critical and therefore it is not prioritised, yet.
I appreciate you want to see it done, and it will be, but sadly it is taking a back seat right now.
--
Cheers,
Tony
-----------------------
tony@pc-tony.com
http://www.pc-tony.com
GPG - 3072D/2543E323
-----------------------
> On 21 Jan 2016, at 12:09, Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl> wrote:
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> Any news on this?
>
> I’m trying to find the list this discussion moved to.
>
> Bert
>
> From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 1 december 2015 22:20
> To: Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org>
> Cc: David Nalley <ke...@apache.org>
> Subject: Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
>
> [bcc: dev@svn; switching lists...]
>
> Yeah. I'll follow up to a more appropriate list, as we're getting into Infra bits rather than svn bits :-)
>
> On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org> wrote:
>> cc+= David Nalley (for oversight, the fact there is an 'issue', etc).
>>
>> Hey Greg,
>>
>> Sorry I didn't mean to use beta. You are indeed correct, as usual, they are releases. :)
>>
>> I will state again, that while I appreciate that differing versions of httpd and/or subversion (and the libraries it uses) is far from a a trivial task for us. This will essentially mean migrating and replacing the current EU slave to bring it into line with the US master. You may recall that the US master move (and therefore migration) was forced upon us when eris died over a year ago now.
>>
>> This forced move meant the host was put on a different OS, which introduced the disparity between the EU and US today.
>>
>> Fixing this is something that Infra would consider a project piece. i.e. not something we can just slot in this week. Given the projects on the table already, and the skills in Infra to to do the work being tied up in other projects; it is going to be weeks before there is any available cycles to address it.
>>
>> I understand this might not be what you want to hear, but it is a fact of where we are in terms of standardising, and automating everything.
>>
>> With all that being said, I suspect you would not want us to deploy 1.9 onto a single host (US) leaving the EU slave where it is now?
>>
>>
>> Tony
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, at 08:45 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> We've *always* been willing to help.
>>>
>>> Note these are not "beta" (like you said back in October). They are 1.9.x release packages. We don't have to do a repository upgrade at this time, but we may want to later. Note that you have different httpd packages on us and eu. That should be fixed first. And then, yes: upgrading the server means upgrading mod_dav_svn.
>>>
>>> Part of the reason for upgrade is to get everybody better performance, but also to bring us and eu into alignment. Having the write-through proxy be a different stack is not "bad", but it certainly isn't Good.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -g
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Greg,
>>>>
>>>> In principal this is fine, yes. If the *PMC* are going to vouch for these binaries, and are willing to help support Infra if/when they are deployed.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I will re-iterate that Infra will roll back if any forward rolling is catastrophic to the service. We are also likely to want to roll up the repo, in to a tarball or some such before hitting the big red button. JIC we need to roll back, and we cannot undo svnadmin upgrade (assuming such an action is needed too).
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps a crash course for the PMC about the stack as is, and how we get to a deployed update is a good idea? Also, we'd like/need a JIRA issue for each bump you want (to contain any notices about steps required, or library changes and so on).
>>>>
>>>> Will you expect us to roll dav_svn et al each time too? If so we should ensure that your package names match those upstream in Ubuntu ( I assume James can cope with that, given his email address ;) ).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015, at 10:00 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>>>> Does this work for you, Tony?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:04 PM, James McCoy <ja...@debian.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:53:43AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>>>>> > Is somebody still working on this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I had mentioned on IRC that I'd provide a PPA based on my Debian
>>>>>> packaging. I forgot to follow up and state that it's available:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://launchpad.net/~jamessan/+archive/ubuntu/subversion
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> James
>>>>>> GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <ja...@debian.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tony
>>>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> --
>> Tony
RE: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Posted by Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl>.
Hi Greg,
Any news on this?
I’m trying to find the list this discussion moved to.
Bert
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
Sent: dinsdag 1 december 2015 22:20
To: Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org>
Cc: David Nalley <ke...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
[bcc: dev@svn; switching lists...]
Yeah. I'll follow up to a more appropriate list, as we're getting into Infra bits rather than svn bits :-)
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Tony Stevenson <pctony@apache.org <ma...@apache.org> > wrote:
cc+= David Nalley (for oversight, the fact there is an 'issue', etc).
Hey Greg,
Sorry I didn't mean to use beta. You are indeed correct, as usual, they are releases. :)
I will state again, that while I appreciate that differing versions of httpd and/or subversion (and the libraries it uses) is far from a a trivial task for us. This will essentially mean migrating and replacing the current EU slave to bring it into line with the US master. You may recall that the US master move (and therefore migration) was forced upon us when eris died over a year ago now.
This forced move meant the host was put on a different OS, which introduced the disparity between the EU and US today.
Fixing this is something that Infra would consider a project piece. i.e. not something we can just slot in this week. Given the projects on the table already, and the skills in Infra to to do the work being tied up in other projects; it is going to be weeks before there is any available cycles to address it.
I understand this might not be what you want to hear, but it is a fact of where we are in terms of standardising, and automating everything.
With all that being said, I suspect you would not want us to deploy 1.9 onto a single host (US) leaving the EU slave where it is now?
Tony
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, at 08:45 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
We've *always* been willing to help.
Note these are not "beta" (like you said back in October). They are 1.9.x release packages. We don't have to do a repository upgrade at this time, but we may want to later. Note that you have different httpd packages on us and eu. That should be fixed first. And then, yes: upgrading the server means upgrading mod_dav_svn.
Part of the reason for upgrade is to get everybody better performance, but also to bring us and eu into alignment. Having the write-through proxy be a different stack is not "bad", but it certainly isn't Good.
Thanks,
-g
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Tony Stevenson <pctony@apache.org <ma...@apache.org> > wrote:
Greg,
In principal this is fine, yes. If the *PMC* are going to vouch for these binaries, and are willing to help support Infra if/when they are deployed.
Of course, I will re-iterate that Infra will roll back if any forward rolling is catastrophic to the service. We are also likely to want to roll up the repo, in to a tarball or some such before hitting the big red button. JIC we need to roll back, and we cannot undo svnadmin upgrade (assuming such an action is needed too).
Perhaps a crash course for the PMC about the stack as is, and how we get to a deployed update is a good idea? Also, we'd like/need a JIRA issue for each bump you want (to contain any notices about steps required, or library changes and so on).
Will you expect us to roll dav_svn et al each time too? If so we should ensure that your package names match those upstream in Ubuntu ( I assume James can cope with that, given his email address ;) ).
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015, at 10:00 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
Does this work for you, Tony?
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:04 PM, James McCoy <jamessan@debian.org <ma...@debian.org> > wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:53:43AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
> Is somebody still working on this?
I had mentioned on IRC that I'd provide a PPA based on my Debian
packaging. I forgot to follow up and state that it's available:
https://launchpad.net/~jamessan/+archive/ubuntu/subversion
Cheers,
--
James
GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <jamessan@debian.org <ma...@debian.org> >
Cheers
--
Tony
Cheers
--
Tony
Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
[bcc: dev@svn; switching lists...]
Yeah. I'll follow up to a more appropriate list, as we're getting into
Infra bits rather than svn bits :-)
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org> wrote:
> cc+= David Nalley (for oversight, the fact there is an 'issue', etc).
>
> Hey Greg,
>
> Sorry I didn't mean to use beta. You are indeed correct, as usual, they
> are releases. :)
>
> I will state again, that while I appreciate that differing versions of
> httpd and/or subversion (and the libraries it uses) is far from a a trivial
> task for us. This will essentially mean migrating and replacing the current
> EU slave to bring it into line with the US master. You may recall that the
> US master move (and therefore migration) was forced upon us when eris died
> over a year ago now.
>
> This forced move meant the host was put on a different OS, which
> introduced the disparity between the EU and US today.
>
> Fixing this is something that Infra would consider a project piece. i.e.
> not something we can just slot in this week. Given the projects on the
> table already, and the skills in Infra to to do the work being tied up in
> other projects; it is going to be weeks before there is any available
> cycles to address it.
>
> I understand this might not be what you want to hear, but it is a fact of
> where we are in terms of standardising, and automating everything.
>
> With all that being said, I suspect you would not want us to deploy 1.9
> onto a single host (US) leaving the EU slave where it is now?
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, at 08:45 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> We've *always* been willing to help.
>
> Note these are not "beta" (like you said back in October). They are 1.9.x
> release packages. We don't have to do a repository upgrade at this time,
> but we may want to later. Note that you have different httpd packages on us
> and eu. That should be fixed first. And then, yes: upgrading the server
> means upgrading mod_dav_svn.
>
> Part of the reason for upgrade is to get everybody better performance, but
> also to bring us and eu into alignment. Having the write-through proxy be a
> different stack is not "bad", but it certainly isn't Good.
>
> Thanks,
> -g
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>
> Greg,
>
> In principal this is fine, yes. If the *PMC* are going to vouch for these
> binaries, and are willing to help support Infra if/when they are deployed.
>
> Of course, I will re-iterate that Infra will roll back if any forward
> rolling is catastrophic to the service. We are also likely to want to roll
> up the repo, in to a tarball or some such before hitting the big red
> button. JIC we need to roll back, and we cannot undo svnadmin upgrade
> (assuming such an action is needed too).
>
> Perhaps a crash course for the PMC about the stack as is, and how we get
> to a deployed update is a good idea? Also, we'd like/need a JIRA issue
> for each bump you want (to contain any notices about steps required, or
> library changes and so on).
>
> Will you expect us to roll dav_svn et al each time too? If so we should
> ensure that your package names match those upstream in Ubuntu ( I assume
> James can cope with that, given his email address ;) ).
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015, at 10:00 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Does this work for you, Tony?
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:04 PM, James McCoy <ja...@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:53:43AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
> > Is somebody still working on this?
>
> I had mentioned on IRC that I'd provide a PPA based on my Debian
> packaging. I forgot to follow up and state that it's available:
>
> https://launchpad.net/~jamessan/+archive/ubuntu/subversion
>
> Cheers,
> --
> James
> GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <ja...@debian.org>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Tony
>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Tony
>
>
Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Posted by Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org>.
cc+= David Nalley (for oversight, the fact there is an 'issue', etc).
Hey Greg,
Sorry I didn't mean to use beta. You are indeed correct, as usual, they
are releases. :)
I will state again, that while I appreciate that differing versions of
httpd and/or subversion (and the libraries it uses) is far from a a
trivial task for us. This will essentially mean migrating and replacing
the current EU slave to bring it into line with the US master. You may
recall that the US master move (and therefore migration) was forced upon
us when eris died over a year ago now.
This forced move meant the host was put on a different OS, which
introduced the disparity between the EU and US today.
Fixing this is something that Infra would consider a project piece. i.e.
not something we can just slot in this week. Given the projects on the
table already, and the skills in Infra to to do the work being tied up
in other projects; it is going to be weeks before there is any available
cycles to address it.
I understand this might not be what you want to hear, but it is a fact
of where we are in terms of standardising, and automating everything.
With all that being said, I suspect you would not want us to deploy 1.9
onto a single host (US) leaving the EU slave where it is now?
Tony
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, at 08:45 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> We've *always* been willing to help.
>
> Note these are not "beta" (like you said back in October). They are
> 1.9.x release packages. We don't have to do a repository upgrade at
> this time, but we may want to later. Note that you have different
> httpd packages on us and eu. That should be fixed first. And then,
> yes: upgrading the server means upgrading mod_dav_svn.
>
> Part of the reason for upgrade is to get everybody better performance,
> but also to bring us and eu into alignment. Having the write-through
> proxy be a different stack is not "bad", but it certainly isn't Good.
>
> Thanks, -g
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Tony Stevenson
> <pc...@apache.org> wrote:
>> __
>> Greg,
>>
>> In principal this is fine, yes. If the *PMC* are going to vouch for
>> these binaries, and are willing to help support Infra if/when they
>> are deployed.
>>
>> Of course, I will re-iterate that Infra will roll back if any forward
>> rolling is catastrophic to the service. We are also likely to want
>> to roll up the repo, in to a tarball or some such before hitting the
>> big red button. JIC we need to roll back, and we cannot undo svnadmin
>> upgrade (assuming such an action is needed too).
>>
>> Perhaps a crash course for the PMC about the stack as is, and how we
>> get to a deployed update is a good idea? Also, we'd like/need a
>> JIRA issue for each bump you want (to contain any notices about steps
>> required, or library changes and so on).
>>
>> Will you expect us to roll dav_svn et al each time too? If so we
>> should ensure that your package names match those upstream in Ubuntu
>> ( I assume James can cope with that, given his email address ;) ).
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015, at 10:00 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> Does this work for you, Tony?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:04 PM, James McCoy <ja...@debian.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:53:43AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>>>
> Is somebody still working on this?
>>>>
>>>> I had mentioned on IRC that I'd provide a PPA based on my Debian
>>>> packaging. I forgot to follow up and state that it's available:
>>>>
>>>> https://launchpad.net/~jamessan/+archive/ubuntu/subversion
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> --
>>>>
James
>>>>
GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <ja...@debian.org>
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> --
>> Tony
>>
Cheers
--
Tony
Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
We've *always* been willing to help.
Note these are not "beta" (like you said back in October). They are 1.9.x
release packages. We don't have to do a repository upgrade at this time,
but we may want to later. Note that you have different httpd packages on us
and eu. That should be fixed first. And then, yes: upgrading the server
means upgrading mod_dav_svn.
Part of the reason for upgrade is to get everybody better performance, but
also to bring us and eu into alignment. Having the write-through proxy be a
different stack is not "bad", but it certainly isn't Good.
Thanks,
-g
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org> wrote:
> Greg,
>
> In principal this is fine, yes. If the *PMC* are going to vouch for these
> binaries, and are willing to help support Infra if/when they are deployed.
>
> Of course, I will re-iterate that Infra will roll back if any forward
> rolling is catastrophic to the service. We are also likely to want to roll
> up the repo, in to a tarball or some such before hitting the big red
> button. JIC we need to roll back, and we cannot undo svnadmin upgrade
> (assuming such an action is needed too).
>
> Perhaps a crash course for the PMC about the stack as is, and how we get
> to a deployed update is a good idea? Also, we'd like/need a JIRA issue
> for each bump you want (to contain any notices about steps required, or
> library changes and so on).
>
> Will you expect us to roll dav_svn et al each time too? If so we should
> ensure that your package names match those upstream in Ubuntu ( I assume
> James can cope with that, given his email address ;) ).
>
>
> On Sun, 29 Nov 2015, at 10:00 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
> Does this work for you, Tony?
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:04 PM, James McCoy <ja...@debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:53:43AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
> > Is somebody still working on this?
>
> I had mentioned on IRC that I'd provide a PPA based on my Debian
> packaging. I forgot to follow up and state that it's available:
>
> https://launchpad.net/~jamessan/+archive/ubuntu/subversion
>
> Cheers,
> --
> James
> GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <ja...@debian.org>
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> --
> Tony
>
>
Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Posted by Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org>.
Greg,
In principal this is fine, yes. If the *PMC* are going to vouch for
these binaries, and are willing to help support Infra if/when they
are deployed.
Of course, I will re-iterate that Infra will roll back if any forward
rolling is catastrophic to the service. We are also likely to want to
roll up the repo, in to a tarball or some such before hitting the big
red button. JIC we need to roll back, and we cannot undo svnadmin
upgrade (assuming such an action is needed too).
Perhaps a crash course for the PMC about the stack as is, and how we get
to a deployed update is a good idea? Also, we'd like/need a JIRA issue
for each bump you want (to contain any notices about steps required, or
library changes and so on).
Will you expect us to roll dav_svn et al each time too? If so we should
ensure that your package names match those upstream in Ubuntu ( I assume
James can cope with that, given his email address ;) ).
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015, at 10:00 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Does this work for you, Tony?
>
> On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:04 PM, James McCoy
> <ja...@debian.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:53:43AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>
> Is somebody still working on this?
>>
>> I had mentioned on IRC that I'd provide a PPA based on my Debian
>> packaging. I forgot to follow up and state that it's available:
>>
>> https://launchpad.net/~jamessan/+archive/ubuntu/subversion
>>
>> Cheers,
>> --
>>
James
>>
GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <ja...@debian.org>
Cheers
--
Tony
Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Does this work for you, Tony?
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:04 PM, James McCoy <ja...@debian.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:53:43AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
> > Is somebody still working on this?
>
> I had mentioned on IRC that I'd provide a PPA based on my Debian
> packaging. I forgot to follow up and state that it's available:
>
> https://launchpad.net/~jamessan/+archive/ubuntu/subversion
>
> Cheers,
> --
> James
> GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <ja...@debian.org>
>
Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Posted by James McCoy <ja...@debian.org>.
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:53:43AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
> Is somebody still working on this?
I had mentioned on IRC that I'd provide a PPA based on my Debian
packaging. I forgot to follow up and state that it's available:
https://launchpad.net/~jamessan/+archive/ubuntu/subversion
Cheers,
--
James
GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <ja...@debian.org>
RE: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Posted by Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl>.
Is somebody still working on this?
Bert
From: Greg Stein [mailto:gstein@gmail.com]
Sent: zaterdag 10 oktober 2015 11:25
To: Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org>
Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org; Apache Infrastructure <in...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Tony Stevenson <pctony@apache.org <ma...@apache.org> > wrote:
>...
I am happy to continue this thread if you want to ask more questions. But the 'it must be a package' - 'from a repo we trust' - 'all changes managed by puppet' are firm policies that we will not shift from.
That's totally fair, and understandable given the growth of the ASF. We're in a much different position from running early Subversion candidates a decade ago :-)
As Branko noted else-thread, we may come back to you with .deb packages in hand.
Thanks!
-g
Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Oct 10, 2015 at 3:14 AM, Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org> wrote:
>...
> I am happy to continue this thread if you want to ask more questions. But
> the 'it must be a package' - 'from a repo we trust' - 'all changes managed
> by puppet' are firm policies that we will not shift from.
>
That's totally fair, and understandable given the growth of the ASF. We're
in a much different position from running early Subversion candidates a
decade ago :-)
As Branko noted else-thread, we may come back to you with .deb packages in
hand.
Thanks!
-g
Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Posted by Tony Stevenson <pc...@apache.org>.
Folks,
For quite some time (well over 18 months now) the Infrastructure team has a policy that we will only deploy products, from packages stored in an accessible repo.
By default this only includes upstream suppliers from the OS. The OS is currently Ubuntu 14.04 - so by default we will only ship the latest version available in the repo.
However that said we are allowed to build our own packages and deploy those from an apt repo that we manage too.
If we do this, of course the package needs to be 100% safe to roll forwards and backwards. So full dependency management, clean install and removal. Etc etc.
To be clear. We will not just deploy some code anymore. This is because the work has to be completely idempotent and totally reproducible each and every time.
The httpd project were also affected by this - as we used to run trunk there. The team has moved on from this, as while it was nice to let folks do this, it added a non-insignificant burden on the Infra team to support it. Plus we have also be tasked with improving the infrastructure, making it more stable, more resilient, and less blocked on individuals. It also needs to fit in with our policy of using puppet to manage production services.
Given our recent (relatively) pain points with our subversion hosts (not the code) we'd be less likely today to just push out a 1.9.x beta release into production.
Please also remember that between the svn service and the mail service we have our by far two biggest services historically. This adds (rightly or wrongly) a higher barrier to entry as we are more sensitive about screwing them up.
What I will say is that:
- if you guys produced a .deb package that did all the things above
- this .deb was hosted in a repo we'd happily pull from
- the subversion project were willing to support the upgrade process and were available if the fan was to meet the shit
- you accept that if we feel we cannot resolve any issues without rolling back - we will do just that.
If you can do this. You may well find us saying yes that much more easily.
Please also remember that we have SLAs we have to work towards - so upgrades need be announced a minimum of 72hours prior, but the more the better.
I am happy to continue this thread if you want to ask more questions. But the 'it must be a package' - 'from a repo we trust' - 'all changes managed by puppet' are firm policies that we will not shift from.
So if you can work within those constraints we might be able to do something.
Cheers,
Tony
On behalf of the Apache Infrastructure Team
Sent from my iPhone
> On 10 Oct 2015, at 08:17, Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Copying Infra on this. No amount of crying on this list will help if we
> don't tell Infra that we're not happy.
>
> TL;DR: Why are not the ASF Subversion servers running the latest and
> greatest version of Subversion?
>
> -- Brane
>
>
>> On 10.10.2015 00:37, bert@qqmail.nl wrote:
>> And since then we lost most custom patches to things like the commit mailer, because policy changed to standardize on using the standard distributions...
>>
>> No more nice summaries of what is merged, but just raw diff output. And still no proper handling of copies, so every pre-copy property is mentioned as property change.
>>
>> Requests to fix this, should now just be forwarded upstream, etc.
>>
>>
>> I'm not sure if that promise still holds...
>>
>> Bert
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Philip Martin
>> Sent: vrijdag 9 oktober 2015 23:47
>> To: Bert Huijben
>> Cc: Mark Phippard;Subversion Development
>> Subject: Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
>>
>>
>> Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl> writes:
>>
>>> I think we have a chicken and egg problem here :(
>>>
>>> The ASF waits until the distributions update... And the distributions
>>> don't update to 1.9 because we apparently don't think it is stable
>>> because we don't update ourselves.
>> When we first discussed the move into the ASF repository:
>>
>> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2009-11/0259.shtml
>>
>> * Infra is willing to run our release candidates on the main repos, so
>> we don't need a special server for that. they're pretty much willing
>> to run anything we ask for (alpha? beta?), but that obviously means
>> we better be *damned* sure it won't lose or corrupt the repo :-)
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: "Mark Phippard" <ma...@gmail.com>
>> Sent: 9-10-2015 20:21
>> To: "Subversion Development" <de...@subversion.apache.org>
>> Subject: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
>>
>> Does anyone know if/when it is planned to update the ASF servers to Subversion 1.9?
>>
>>
>> The Apache headers say it is still running 1.8.1. Is that true? Or is it a patched version of 1.8.1 at least?
>
Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@apache.org>.
Copying Infra on this. No amount of crying on this list will help if we
don't tell Infra that we're not happy.
TL;DR: Why are not the ASF Subversion servers running the latest and
greatest version of Subversion?
-- Brane
On 10.10.2015 00:37, bert@qqmail.nl wrote:
> And since then we lost most custom patches to things like the commit mailer, because policy changed to standardize on using the standard distributions...
>
> No more nice summaries of what is merged, but just raw diff output. And still no proper handling of copies, so every pre-copy property is mentioned as property change.
>
> Requests to fix this, should now just be forwarded upstream, etc.
>
>
> I'm not sure if that promise still holds...
>
> Bert
>
>
>
> From: Philip Martin
> Sent: vrijdag 9 oktober 2015 23:47
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: Mark Phippard;Subversion Development
> Subject: Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
>
>
> Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl> writes:
>
>> I think we have a chicken and egg problem here :(
>>
>> The ASF waits until the distributions update... And the distributions
>> don't update to 1.9 because we apparently don't think it is stable
>> because we don't update ourselves.
> When we first discussed the move into the ASF repository:
>
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2009-11/0259.shtml
>
> * Infra is willing to run our release candidates on the main repos, so
> we don't need a special server for that. they're pretty much willing
> to run anything we ask for (alpha? beta?), but that obviously means
> we better be *damned* sure it won't lose or corrupt the repo :-)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Mark Phippard" <ma...@gmail.com>
> Sent: 9-10-2015 20:21
> To: "Subversion Development" <de...@subversion.apache.org>
> Subject: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
>
> Does anyone know if/when it is planned to update the ASF servers to Subversion 1.9?
>
>
> The Apache headers say it is still running 1.8.1. Is that true? Or is it a patched version of 1.8.1 at least?
RE: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Posted by be...@qqmail.nl.
And since then we lost most custom patches to things like the commit mailer, because policy changed to standardize on using the standard distributions...
No more nice summaries of what is merged, but just raw diff output. And still no proper handling of copies, so every pre-copy property is mentioned as property change.
Requests to fix this, should now just be forwarded upstream, etc.
I'm not sure if that promise still holds...
Bert
From: Philip Martin
Sent: vrijdag 9 oktober 2015 23:47
To: Bert Huijben
Cc: Mark Phippard;Subversion Development
Subject: Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl> writes:
> I think we have a chicken and egg problem here :(
>
> The ASF waits until the distributions update... And the distributions
> don't update to 1.9 because we apparently don't think it is stable
> because we don't update ourselves.
When we first discussed the move into the ASF repository:
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2009-11/0259.shtml
* Infra is willing to run our release candidates on the main repos, so
we don't need a special server for that. they're pretty much willing
to run anything we ask for (alpha? beta?), but that obviously means
we better be *damned* sure it won't lose or corrupt the repo :-)
--
Philip Martin
WANdisco
Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Posted by Philip Martin <ph...@wandisco.com>.
Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl> writes:
> I think we have a chicken and egg problem here :(
>
> The ASF waits until the distributions update... And the distributions
> don't update to 1.9 because we apparently don't think it is stable
> because we don't update ourselves.
When we first discussed the move into the ASF repository:
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2009-11/0259.shtml
* Infra is willing to run our release candidates on the main repos, so
we don't need a special server for that. they're pretty much willing
to run anything we ask for (alpha? beta?), but that obviously means
we better be *damned* sure it won't lose or corrupt the repo :-)
--
Philip Martin
WANdisco
RE: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Posted by Bert Huijben <be...@qqmail.nl>.
I think we have a chicken and egg problem here :(
The ASF waits until the distributions update... And the distributions don't update to 1.9 because we apparently don't think it is stable because we don't update ourselves.
On FreeBSD I see zero progress on updating to 1.9, even with 1.9.2. Many other platforms haven't released their first 1.9 version either.
Bert
-----Original Message-----
From: "Mark Phippard" <ma...@gmail.com>
Sent: 9-10-2015 20:21
To: "Subversion Development" <de...@subversion.apache.org>
Subject: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Does anyone know if/when it is planned to update the ASF servers to Subversion 1.9?
The Apache headers say it is still running 1.8.1. Is that true? Or is it a patched version of 1.8.1 at least?
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/