Re: Rolling 1.10.0-rc2

[Julian Foad]

Julian Foad wrote:

Can anyone volunteer to review this important block-read fix?

(adding to CC: some people who might)


Thanks for your review, stefan2!

We now need one more review.

- Julian



Philip Martin wrote:

Julian Foad writes:

How do you feel about the amount of test coverage we are giving this
block-read code so far -- is it sufficient for a 1.10.0 release? And
should I roll RC2 ASAP or not?


The block-read fix in STATUS still needs approval.

As well as running the regression tests with block-read enabled I've
also been putting some real repositories through block-read mode.  I've
used the original Collab Subversion repository: 40,000 revisions and
about 0.5GB, the Subversion part of the ASF repository: 1.8M revisions
and about 1.5GB, and the GCC repository: 250,000 revisions and about
9GB.  I've done both dump/load and svnsync, with svnsync writing over
http: and svn:.  Writing over network protocols puts the FSFS cache in
the server process and that allows me to access the same cache with read
requests such as 'svnbench null-export' while the commits are being
made.

I've not had any further problems with these tests.

Re: Rolling 1.10.0-rc2

[Julian Foad]

Can anyone volunteer to review this important block-read fix?

(adding to CC: some people who might)

- Julian


Philip Martin wrote:

Julian Foad writes:

How do you feel about the amount of test coverage we are giving this
block-read code so far -- is it sufficient for a 1.10.0 release? And
should I roll RC2 ASAP or not?


The block-read fix in STATUS still needs approval.

As well as running the regression tests with block-read enabled I've
also been putting some real repositories through block-read mode.  I've
used the original Collab Subversion repository: 40,000 revisions and
about 0.5GB, the Subversion part of the ASF repository: 1.8M revisions
and about 1.5GB, and the GCC repository: 250,000 revisions and about
9GB.  I've done both dump/load and svnsync, with svnsync writing over
http: and svn:.  Writing over network protocols puts the FSFS cache in
the server process and that allows me to access the same cache with read
requests such as 'svnbench null-export' while the commits are being
made.

I've not had any further problems with these tests.

Re: Rolling 1.10.0-rc2

[Philip Martin]

Julian Foad  writes:

> How do you feel about the amount of test coverage we are giving this
> block-read code so far -- is it sufficient for a 1.10.0 release? And
> should I roll RC2 ASAP or not?

The block-read fix in STATUS still needs approval.

As well as running the regression tests with block-read enabled I've
also been putting some real repositories through block-read mode.  I've
used the original Collab Subversion repository: 40,000 revisions and
about 0.5GB, the Subversion part of the ASF repository: 1.8M revisions
and about 1.5GB, and the GCC repository: 250,000 revisions and about
9GB.  I've done both dump/load and svnsync, with svnsync writing over
http: and svn:.  Writing over network protocols puts the FSFS cache in
the server process and that allows me to access the same cache with read
requests such as 'svnbench null-export' while the commits are being
made.

I've not had any further problems with these tests.

-- 
Philip

Re: Rolling 1.10.0-rc2

[Julian Foad]

Julian Foad wrote:

Philip Martin wrote:

Julian Foad  writes:

AFAIK we still need to arrange adequate test coverage for it.


Test coverage is provided by the other nominations in STATUS.  Apply
r1827105, r1827114 and run "make davautocheck BLOCK_READ=1" and see lots
of tests FAIL.  Apply the 4725 fix and they PASS.


Have we got any bots doing this?


What I really mean is:

Thank you very much for doing all this.

How do you feel about the amount of test coverage we are giving this 
block-read code so far -- is it sufficient for a 1.10.0 release? And 
should I roll RC2 ASAP or not?


My feeling is it's not yet been tested enough to be confident for a 
1.10.0 release, and we should get it tested by bots on most platforms, 
but I should probably go ahead with RC2 ASAP and then we can evaluate 
and test further at the same time.


If that's agreed, I'll try to roll RC2 around Wednesday this week.

- Julian

Re: Rolling 1.10.0-rc2

[Julian Foad]

Philip Martin wrote:

Julian Foad  writes:

AFAIK we still need to arrange adequate test coverage for it.


Test coverage is provided by the other nominations in STATUS.  Apply
r1827105, r1827114 and run "make davautocheck BLOCK_READ=1" and see lots
of tests FAIL.  Apply the 4725 fix and they PASS.


Have we got any bots doing this?


   * revprop caching has changed for 1.10; isn't mentioned in the release notes


r1827201


Thanks.

- Julian

Re: Rolling 1.10.0-rc2

[Philip Martin]

Julian Foad  writes:

> AFAIK we still need to arrange adequate test coverage for it.

Test coverage is provided by the other nominations in STATUS.  Apply
r1827105, r1827114 and run "make davautocheck BLOCK_READ=1" and see lots
of tests FAIL.  Apply the 4725 fix and they PASS.

>   * revprop caching has changed for 1.10; isn't mentioned in the release notes

r1827201

-- 
Philip

Re: Rolling 1.10.0-rc2

[Julian Foad]

Julian Foad wrote:
I plan to roll 1.10.0-rc2 this week so we can release it by next 
Wednesday (3 weeks from RC1).


Update: That plan is delayed by

  "svnadmin load error fsfs cache"
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4725
  "FSFS cache reading one svndiff window beyond end"
  https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4727
  (both relate to the same underlying problem)

Philip has already found and fixed the problem.

AFAIK we still need to arrange adequate test coverage for it.

Also noted:

  * revprop caching has changed for 1.10; isn't mentioned in the 
release notes


- Julian


Please review the 'STATUS' file and report here if there's anything else 
I should take into account.


If anyone's willing to write a brief list of the changes since RC1, to 
include in the RC2 announcement, that would be an added bonus.

Re: Rolling 1.10.0-rc2

[Daniel Shahaf]

Johan Corveleyn wrote on Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 12:00:57 +0100:
> C:\>python tools\dist\release.py  write-changelog 
> --include-unlabeled-summaries branches/1.10.x tags/1.10.0-rc1
> * Merge r1825045 from trunk: (r1825285)
> * Merge r1825215 from trunk: (r1825286)
> * Merge r1825306 from trunk: (r1826169)
> * Merge r1825721 from trunk: (r1826064)
> * Merge the r1825024 group from trunk: (r1825287)
> * Merge the r1825736 group from trunk: (r1825795)
> 
> Hmmm, write-changelog should be improved to "recurse" into the merged
> revision / group to get those revision's changelog lines instead, or
> to parse it from the subsequent lines of the merge commit itself (as
> it was filled in by svn-role which got the info when processing
> STATUS).

release.py could import backport.parser and sic it on the log message, but
beware of py2/py3 mismatches.  (I'm not sure whether release.py works under py3
nor whether backport.py works under py2.)

Re: Rolling 1.10.0-rc2

[Evgeny Kotkov]

Julian Foad  writes:

> Please review the 'STATUS' file and report here if there's anything else I
> should take into account.

I have found a bug (my fault) in the new svn_txdelta_to_svndiff_stream()
API that can result in failing commits over http://.

Should be fixed by https://svn.apache.org/r1826747 and proposed
for backport to 1.10.x.


Thanks,
Evgeny Kotkov

Re: Rolling 1.10.0-rc2

[Johan Corveleyn]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 1:06 PM, Johan Corveleyn  wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Branko Čibej  wrote:
>> On 14.03.2018 08:58, Julian Foad wrote:
> ...
>>> If anyone's willing to write a brief list of the changes since RC1, to
>>> include in the RC2 announcement, that would be an added bonus.
>>
>> svn log -v STATUS | grep svn-role. But that wouldn't really work, would
>> it. :)
>
> Maybe try:
>
> release.py write-changelog --include-unlabeled-summaries
> branches/1.10.x tags/1.10.0-rc1

(the above all on one line of course ... stupid automatic wrapping)

-- 
Johan

Re: Rolling 1.10.0-rc2

[Johan Corveleyn]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 12:22 PM, Branko Čibej  wrote:
> On 14.03.2018 08:58, Julian Foad wrote:
...
>> If anyone's willing to write a brief list of the changes since RC1, to
>> include in the RC2 announcement, that would be an added bonus.
>
> svn log -v STATUS | grep svn-role. But that wouldn't really work, would
> it. :)

Maybe try:

release.py write-changelog --include-unlabeled-summaries
branches/1.10.x tags/1.10.0-rc1

(not at my "svn pc" right now, so can't try it myself)

-- 
Johan

Re: Rolling 1.10.0-rc2

[Branko Čibej]

On 14.03.2018 08:58, Julian Foad wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote on 2018-02-28:
>> I'm happy to announce the release of Apache Subversion 1.10.0-rc1.
>
> That was 2 weeks ago and we need an RC2.
>
> I plan to roll 1.10.0-rc2 this week so we can release it by next
> Wednesday (3 weeks from RC1).
>
> Please review the 'STATUS' file and report here if there's anything
> else I should take into account.

All three entries currently there should be part of RC2 (and the final
release). I'll try to review them tonight, as they each only need one
more signature.


> If anyone's willing to write a brief list of the changes since RC1, to
> include in the RC2 announcement, that would be an added bonus.

svn log -v STATUS | grep svn-role. But that wouldn't really work, would
it. :)

-- Brane