You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to commits@subversion.apache.org by st...@apache.org on 2015/08/24 15:32:41 UTC
svn commit: r1697390 - /subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
Author: stefan2
Date: Mon Aug 24 13:32:41 2015
New Revision: 1697390
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1697390
Log:
* STATUS: Add svnfsfs load-index fixes (r1697381, r1697384, r1697387).
Modified:
subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
Modified: subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS?rev=1697390&r1=1697389&r2=1697390&view=diff
==============================================================================
--- subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS (original)
+++ subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS Mon Aug 24 13:32:41 2015
@@ -129,6 +129,15 @@ Candidate changes:
Votes:
+1: rhuijben
+ * r1697381, r1697384, r1697387
+ Make 'svnfsfs load-index' work as advertised in the documentation
+ Justification:
+ svnfsfs load-index would only ever be used in high-stress situations
+ like desaster recovery. So, while workarounds are possible, having
+ people jump though a few extra hoops is a bad thing in that context.
+ Votes:
+ +1: stefan2
+
Veto-blocked changes:
=====================
Re: svn commit: r1697390 - /subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
Posted by Stefan Fuhrmann <st...@wandisco.com>.
On Tue, Aug 25, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 24.08.2015 15:32, stefan2@apache.org wrote:
> > Author: stefan2
> > Date: Mon Aug 24 13:32:41 2015
> > New Revision: 1697390
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1697390
> > Log:
> > * STATUS: Add svnfsfs load-index fixes (r1697381, r1697384, r1697387).
> >
> > Modified:
> > subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
> >
> > Modified: subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
> > URL:
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS?rev=1697390&r1=1697389&r2=1697390&view=diff
> >
> ==============================================================================
> > --- subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS (original)
> > +++ subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS Mon Aug 24 13:32:41 2015
> > @@ -129,6 +129,15 @@ Candidate changes:
> > Votes:
> > +1: rhuijben
> >
> > + * r1697381, r1697384, r1697387
> > + Make 'svnfsfs load-index' work as advertised in the documentation
> > + Justification:
> > + svnfsfs load-index would only ever be used in high-stress
> situations
> > + like desaster recovery. So, while workarounds are possible, having
> > + people jump though a few extra hoops is a bad thing in that
> context.
> > + Votes:
> > + +1: stefan2
> > +
>
> I have to admit that I don't have a clue what this backport proposal is
> about. What doesn't work as advertised? What kind of workarounds are we
> talking about?
>
I documented them today in our release notes (r1697932).
> According to the log messages of these three revisions, it would appear
> that they're three (unrelated?) bug fixes in svnfsfs. However, I can't
> find any test cases that would help me verify that the fixes actually
> perform as advertised.
>
All 3 patches correct / deal with 'svnfsfs load-index' UI issues
where the tool would feed wrong data to FSFS' private APIs.
The actual internal API functionality is covered by fs-fs-private-tests.
r1697967 adds a UI test. I appended it to the list.
> In other words, I've no idea how to vote for this backport.
>
In case you want more input, clarification etc, I should be
on IRC from around 0930 UTC on tomorrow.
-- Stefan^2.
Re: svn commit: r1697390 - /subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com>.
On 24.08.2015 15:32, stefan2@apache.org wrote:
> Author: stefan2
> Date: Mon Aug 24 13:32:41 2015
> New Revision: 1697390
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1697390
> Log:
> * STATUS: Add svnfsfs load-index fixes (r1697381, r1697384, r1697387).
>
> Modified:
> subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
>
> Modified: subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS?rev=1697390&r1=1697389&r2=1697390&view=diff
> ==============================================================================
> --- subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS (original)
> +++ subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS Mon Aug 24 13:32:41 2015
> @@ -129,6 +129,15 @@ Candidate changes:
> Votes:
> +1: rhuijben
>
> + * r1697381, r1697384, r1697387
> + Make 'svnfsfs load-index' work as advertised in the documentation
> + Justification:
> + svnfsfs load-index would only ever be used in high-stress situations
> + like desaster recovery. So, while workarounds are possible, having
> + people jump though a few extra hoops is a bad thing in that context.
> + Votes:
> + +1: stefan2
> +
I have to admit that I don't have a clue what this backport proposal is
about. What doesn't work as advertised? What kind of workarounds are we
talking about?
According to the log messages of these three revisions, it would appear
that they're three (unrelated?) bug fixes in svnfsfs. However, I can't
find any test cases that would help me verify that the fixes actually
perform as advertised.
In other words, I've no idea how to vote for this backport.
-- Brane