On 5/16/2016 14:29, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 16.05.2016 13:24, Stefan wrote: >> On 5/16/2016 13:14, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>> On 16 May 2016 at 13:43, Stefan <luke1...@posteo.de> wrote: >>>> On 5/16/2016 11:42, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>>>> On 15 May 2016 at 03:02, Stefan <luke1...@gmx.de> wrote: >>>>>> On 5/15/2016 01:13, Stefan wrote: >>>>>>> [[[ >>>>>>> Add a troubleshooting section to 1.9 to help users tracing down problems >>>>>>> related to proxies when locking/unlocking multiple files. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> * docs/release-notes/1.9.html >>>>>>> (troubleshooting): Add new section including http-pipelining issue >>>>>>> description. >>>>>>> ]]] >>>>>> Small correction to patchnotes: >>>>>> >>>>>> [[[ >>>>>> Add a troubleshooting section to 1.9 to help users tracing down problems >>>>>> related to proxies when locking/unlocking multiple files. >>>>>> >>>>>> * docs/release-notes/1.9.html >>>>>> (troubleshooting): Add new section including http-pipelining issue >>>>>> description. >>>>>> (news): Add link to new troubleshooting section. >>>>>> ]]] >>>>>> >>>>> I think it's better to use term "HTTP pipelining" instead of >>>>> "http-pipelining" on the website. Another wording suggestion: replace >>>>> ".. protocols/applications involved in processing http-pipelining." >>>>> with something like ".. protocols/applications involved in processing >>>>> pipelined HTTP requests." >>>> Thanks for the review Ivan, attached patch incorporates your changes and >>>> also changes the section name (http-pipeline-issue -> >>>> http-pipelining-issue). >>>> >>> Thanks for fixing that, but title still uses term 'http-pipelining": >>> +<h3>Lock/Unlock errors related to http-pipelining >>> + <a class="sectionlink" href="#http-pipelining-issue" >>> + title="Link to this section">¶</a> >>> +</h3> >> Good spot. Fixed with the attached patch. > Can you please not use <br/> where it's not appropriate. You should > actually have multiple paragraphs in the description, not one paragraph > with hard line breaks. > > An HTML editor quirk, perhaps? It's rather my layout style which I didn't correctly adjust to cope for the layout used on the release notes page. I believe that the revised patch should use the correct layout now. The patch also corrects the missing encoding of the & in the URL in the new trouble shooting section.
Regards, Stefan
Index: docs/release-notes/1.9.html
===================================================================
--- docs/release-notes/1.9.html (revision 1744038)
+++ docs/release-notes/1.9.html (working copy)
@@ -38,6 +38,8 @@
>Many enhancements and bug fixes</a></li>
<li><a href="#issues"
>Known issues in the release</a></li>
+ <li><a href="#troubleshooting"
+ >Troubleshooting issues specific to this release</a></li>
</ul>
<p>Apache Subversion 1.9 is a superset of all previous Subversion
@@ -1451,6 +1453,54 @@
</div> <!-- issues -->
+<div class="h2" id="troubleshooting">
+<h2>Troubleshooting issues specific to this release
+ <a class="sectionlink" href="#troubleshooting"
+ title="Link to this section">¶</a>
+</h2>
+
+<p>Subversion 1.9 introduces new features and makes use of new techniques
+which can trigger problems not encountered in previous versions. In contrast to
+known issues, things listed here are not due to some bug or issue in Subversion
+itself and therefore cannot be fixed with a new patch release.
+This section lists all known problems and provides instructions to solve them,
+if they occur.</p>
+
+<div class="h3" id="http-pipelining-issue">
+<h3>Lock/Unlock errors related to HTTP pipelining
+ <a class="sectionlink" href="#http-pipelining-issue"
+ title="Link to this section">¶</a>
+</h3>
+
+<p>Subversion 1.9.0 introduces the use of HTTP pipelining for locking/unlocking
+multiple files. While SVN detects whether HTTP pipelining is supported (and
+falls back to non HTTP pipelining mode, if it isn't), issues can arrise, if
+there are flaws or bugs with any of the protocols/applications involved in
+processing pipelined HTTP requests.</p>
+
+<p>Especially, if there are older proxies present in the network topology, it's
+possible that you run into issues, since being a technology which was
+introduced in HTTP/1.1 (and the full performance benefit is not expected unless
+you are using HTTP/2), this feature might have not been extensively tested by
+your proxy vendor.</p>
+
+<p>To troubleshoot whether the proxy is causing an issue, try to lock/unlock
+multiple files bypassing the proxy. If that works, please get in touch with
+the proxy vendor to notify him about the problem and ask for support.</p>
+
+<p>It's also appreciated, if you would let the SVN developers know about the
+effected proxy via the users mailing list so this troubleshooting section can
+be updated.</p>
+
+<p>At the moment there is one potentially known proprietary proxy running into
+this issue: Java-SSL-tunnel. See
+<a href="http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=3171337";>Tortoise SVN mailing list</a>
+.</p>
+
+</div> <!-- http-pipelining-issue -->
+
+</div> <!-- troubleshooting -->
+
<div class="h2" id="svn-1.7-deprecation">
<h2>Subversion 1.7.x series no longer supported
<a class="sectionlink" href="#svn-1.7-deprecation"
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
