You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> on 2009/05/02 16:59:06 UTC
[Second Request] Re: Stale logs and upgrading to WC-NG
I'm issuing a second request for comment here. IMO, this is a pretty
dramatic departure from prior release strategy, and (for a few users)
it will be a pain to grab an old client to clean out the stale logs.
(or to do a new checkout, and figure out what changes to port over)
We're getting *very* close to the point where we're going to start on
a major hack/slash against the loggy code. We need to be sure that
people are bought into the position of, "oops. you crashed at a bad
spot. then upgraded your client. you're in a tough spot".
I'll assume "it's a total edge case, so yah. any stale logs prevent an upgrade."
If the problem space is unclear to anybody, then please let me know,
and Hyrum/myself can explain further.
Thanks,
-g
On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 03:01, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>...
> Regarding upgrading: I believe we should always be able to upgrade any
> production release. IOW, upgrade 1.0 working copies. I think it is
> simply part of our compatibility story across 1.x releases.
>
> The question at hand isn't so much upgrading as "should we expend the
> effort to run stale logs from within the 1.7 codebase, or send people
> back to a prior release to clear those out first?" (or they can just
> do a new checkout) Running stale logs would be a HUGE effort, and
> potentially affecting mere handfuls of people. Thus, the reason for
> Hyrum's email.
>
> Cheers,
> -g
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2033486
Re: [Second Request] Re: Stale logs and upgrading to WC-NG
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Greg Stein wrote:
> On another note, elsewhere in this thread was a call for "maybe use
> something other than 'svn cleanup'?" ... When Hyrum and I suggested
> that command, it was in terms of "clean up your wc, to be usable by
> 1.7 [and yah... it upgrades it]." But in the past day, I believe we
> are going to continue to need the historical concept of "cleanup",
> even in the wc-ng world. To that end, I would propose a --upgrade
> switch to cleanup, rather than a new 'upgrade' subcommand.
There is a certain pleasant parallel between 'svnadmin upgrade' for
repositories and 'svn upgrade' (as opposed to 'svn cleanup --upgrade') for
working copies. No strong opinion on the matter, though. At least, not
today. ;-)
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2056934
Re: [Second Request] Re: Stale logs and upgrading to WC-NG
Posted by Greg Troxel <gd...@ir.bbn.com>.
Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> writes:
> Yup. Thanks for the feedback.
>
> On another note, elsewhere in this thread was a call for "maybe use
> something other than 'svn cleanup'?" ... When Hyrum and I suggested
> that command, it was in terms of "clean up your wc, to be usable by
> 1.7 [and yah... it upgrades it]." But in the past day, I believe we
> are going to continue to need the historical concept of "cleanup",
> even in the wc-ng world. To that end, I would propose a --upgrade
> switch to cleanup, rather than a new 'upgrade' subcommand.
>
> Thoughts welcome. I would be very interested in further feedback from
> the community, since our development strategy really changes depending
> on whether we need to run stale logs or not.
When I read that 'svn cleanup' would be how to upgrade a WC, my reaction
was that it was confusing and not a good idea. svn cleanup --upgrade is
not confusing, but does seem a bit odd - 'svn upgrade' seems natural.
I see a difference between the equivalent of running fsck on a working
copy and converting it to a new format, which makes me want a separate
subcommand.
I think it's an important feature that your wc doesn't get upgraded
unless you ask for it. (Speaking as the CM weenie in a large group
hoping to avoid confusion on the part of my people who do not - and
should not have to - pay deep attention to these details.)
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2057826
Re: [Second Request] Re: Stale logs and upgrading to WC-NG
Posted by Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com>.
Yup. Thanks for the feedback.
On another note, elsewhere in this thread was a call for "maybe use
something other than 'svn cleanup'?" ... When Hyrum and I suggested
that command, it was in terms of "clean up your wc, to be usable by
1.7 [and yah... it upgrades it]." But in the past day, I believe we
are going to continue to need the historical concept of "cleanup",
even in the wc-ng world. To that end, I would propose a --upgrade
switch to cleanup, rather than a new 'upgrade' subcommand.
Thoughts welcome. I would be very interested in further feedback from
the community, since our development strategy really changes depending
on whether we need to run stale logs or not.
Thanks,
-g
On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 15:24, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> We know what the ideal situation is, but it sounds like the development cost
> is crippling in this case. I'm okay with calling this an unsupported edge
> case, and with recommending that folks ensure the successful completion of
> 'svn cleanup' in all working copies *before* upgrading to 1.7.
>
> Greg Stein wrote:
>> I'm issuing a second request for comment here. IMO, this is a pretty
>> dramatic departure from prior release strategy, and (for a few users)
>> it will be a pain to grab an old client to clean out the stale logs.
>> (or to do a new checkout, and figure out what changes to port over)
>>
>> We're getting *very* close to the point where we're going to start on
>> a major hack/slash against the loggy code. We need to be sure that
>> people are bought into the position of, "oops. you crashed at a bad
>> spot. then upgraded your client. you're in a tough spot".
>>
>> I'll assume "it's a total edge case, so yah. any stale logs prevent an upgrade."
>>
>> If the problem space is unclear to anybody, then please let me know,
>> and Hyrum/myself can explain further.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -g
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 03:01, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> Regarding upgrading: I believe we should always be able to upgrade any
>>> production release. IOW, upgrade 1.0 working copies. I think it is
>>> simply part of our compatibility story across 1.x releases.
>>>
>>> The question at hand isn't so much upgrading as "should we expend the
>>> effort to run stale logs from within the 1.7 codebase, or send people
>>> back to a prior release to clear those out first?" (or they can just
>>> do a new checkout) Running stale logs would be a HUGE effort, and
>>> potentially affecting mere handfuls of people. Thus, the reason for
>>> Hyrum's email.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> -g
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2033486
>
>
> --
> C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
>
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2056463
Re: [Second Request] Re: Stale logs and upgrading to WC-NG
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
We know what the ideal situation is, but it sounds like the development cost
is crippling in this case. I'm okay with calling this an unsupported edge
case, and with recommending that folks ensure the successful completion of
'svn cleanup' in all working copies *before* upgrading to 1.7.
Greg Stein wrote:
> I'm issuing a second request for comment here. IMO, this is a pretty
> dramatic departure from prior release strategy, and (for a few users)
> it will be a pain to grab an old client to clean out the stale logs.
> (or to do a new checkout, and figure out what changes to port over)
>
> We're getting *very* close to the point where we're going to start on
> a major hack/slash against the loggy code. We need to be sure that
> people are bought into the position of, "oops. you crashed at a bad
> spot. then upgraded your client. you're in a tough spot".
>
> I'll assume "it's a total edge case, so yah. any stale logs prevent an upgrade."
>
> If the problem space is unclear to anybody, then please let me know,
> and Hyrum/myself can explain further.
>
> Thanks,
> -g
>
> On Thu, Apr 9, 2009 at 03:01, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> ...
>> Regarding upgrading: I believe we should always be able to upgrade any
>> production release. IOW, upgrade 1.0 working copies. I think it is
>> simply part of our compatibility story across 1.x releases.
>>
>> The question at hand isn't so much upgrading as "should we expend the
>> effort to run stale logs from within the 1.7 codebase, or send people
>> back to a prior release to clear those out first?" (or they can just
>> do a new checkout) Running stale logs would be a HUGE effort, and
>> potentially affecting mere handfuls of people. Thus, the reason for
>> Hyrum's email.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -g
>>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2033486
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2056421
Re: [Second Request] Re: Stale logs and upgrading to WC-NG
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Greg Stein <gs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm issuing a second request for comment here. IMO, this is a pretty
> dramatic departure from prior release strategy, and (for a few users)
> it will be a pain to grab an old client to clean out the stale logs.
> (or to do a new checkout, and figure out what changes to port over)
>
> We're getting *very* close to the point where we're going to start on
> a major hack/slash against the loggy code. We need to be sure that
> people are bought into the position of, "oops. you crashed at a bad
> spot. then upgraded your client. you're in a tough spot".
>
> I'll assume "it's a total edge case, so yah. any stale logs prevent an upgrade."
>
> If the problem space is unclear to anybody, then please let me know,
> and Hyrum/myself can explain further.
My concern is folks who might be using bundled SVN installs like
Debian/Ubuntu. Consider if/when they upgrade from one distro version
to the next ('apt-get dist-upgrade'), then the WCs might all end up in
funny land if someone had a stale WC and didn't know it. What can we
do for those users?
So, yah, I'm a tad uncomfortable about this. -- justin
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2058580