Re: Potential regression: high server-side memory consumption during import (was: Subversion 1.10 RC1?)

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 05:15:46PM +0300, Evgeny Kotkov wrote: > Unless I am missing something, this might be worth considering before the > 1.10 GA release. Evgeny, you were entirely right about calling this out as a release blocker. I am sorry for having suggested otherwise.

Re: Potential regression: high server-side memory consumption during import (was: Subversion 1.10 RC1?)

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 07:21:15PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: > I am just questioning the usefulness of halting the presses and restarting > the soak for another month for something that isn't a security / data > corruption issue. I anticipate that problems of similar severity to this > one

Re: Potential regression: high server-side memory consumption during import (was: Subversion 1.10 RC1?)

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 09:02:02PM +0300, Evgeny Kotkov wrote: > Stefan Sperling writes: > > > I'd rather ship 1.10.0 at the prospected release date followed closely > > by 1.10.1 to fix bugs such as these, than delay general access to 1.10.0 > > even further. > > While I do not

Re: Potential regression: high server-side memory consumption during import (was: Subversion 1.10 RC1?)

Stefan Sperling writes: > I'd rather ship 1.10.0 at the prospected release date followed closely > by 1.10.1 to fix bugs such as these, than delay general access to 1.10.0 > even further. While I do not have significant objections against such plan, I find the idea of shipping a

Re: Potential regression: high server-side memory consumption during import (was: Subversion 1.10 RC1?)

On Fri, Mar 02, 2018 at 05:15:46PM +0300, Evgeny Kotkov wrote: > Unless I am missing something, this might be worth considering before the > 1.10 GA release. Not about the actual bug, just a meta comment on the process: I'd rather ship 1.10.0 at the prospected release date followed closely by

Re: Potential regression: high server-side memory consumption during import (was: Subversion 1.10 RC1?)

Stefan Fuhrmann writes: > Would it be possible for you to bisect this to find the offending revision? > My random guess would be that in the context of mod_dav_svn, we might use > an unsuitable pool for authz caching. While looking through the various 1.10-related topics, I

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

Julian Foad wrote: > Julian Foad wrote on 2017-12-15: >> The 1.10 release branch has been created. Progress update: * 1.9 compatibility testing is done. Philip determined that the mixed- version test failures are not release critical. * We are aware of two blockers: - STATUS has r1820778

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

Julian Foad wrote on 2017-12-15: The 1.10 release branch has been created. An RC1 tarball still needs to be rolled. I plan to do that by the end of December. Progress update: we're still working through pre-RC1 issues. The very end of February is now the earliest possible date for 1.10

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

Julian Foad wrote: Julian Foad wrote: At the hackathon today we (me, Stefan Hett, Bert, Johan) have been talking about how to progress 1.10. It seems we have general consensus to move to an RC1. A few things we'd like to fix but no real blockers -- nothing we can't address during the RC

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

On 07.12.2017 17:42, Doug Robinson wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Daniel Shahaf > wrote: > > Evgeny Kotkov wrote on Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 00:12:55 +0300: > > Unfortunately, on Windows both `--search M*` and (quoted) >

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

On Wed, Dec 6, 2017 at 7:09 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Evgeny Kotkov wrote on Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 00:12:55 +0300: > > Unfortunately, on Windows both `--search M*` and (quoted) `--search "M*"` > > would expand the asterisk. While this is not the default shell behavior,

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

Evgeny Kotkov wrote on Wed, Dec 06, 2017 at 00:12:55 +0300: > Unfortunately, on Windows both `--search M*` and (quoted) `--search "M*"` > would expand the asterisk. While this is not the default shell behavior, > currently it's enabled for svn and a couple of other binaries by linking > to

Re: Potential regression: high server-side memory consumption during import (was: Subversion 1.10 RC1?)

On 05.12.2017 22:05, Evgeny Kotkov wrote: Julian Foad writes: After any issues raised in this discussion are resolved, we feel we should go ahead and produce RC1 as soon as possible. I think that I am seeing a 1.10 regression in terms of httpd's memory usage during

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

Op 5 dec. 2017 22:13 schreef "Evgeny Kotkov" : Stefan Fuhrmann writes: > There seems to be little that could be done here (suggestions welcome). > The problem is that the asterisk is being expanded by the shell itself. > I made SVN print its

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

On 05.12.2017 22:12, Evgeny Kotkov wrote: > Stefan Fuhrmann writes: > >> There seems to be little that could be done here (suggestions welcome). >> The problem is that the asterisk is being expanded by the shell itself. >> I made SVN print its command line parameters and this

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

Stefan Fuhrmann writes: > There seems to be little that could be done here (suggestions welcome). > The problem is that the asterisk is being expanded by the shell itself. > I made SVN print its command line parameters and this is the result: > > $

Potential regression: high server-side memory consumption during import (was: Subversion 1.10 RC1?)

Julian Foad writes: > After any issues raised in this discussion are resolved, we feel we should > go ahead and produce RC1 as soon as possible. I think that I am seeing a 1.10 regression in terms of httpd's memory usage during large imports. In my environment, when I

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

On Mon, Dec 04, 2017 at 12:51:26PM +0100, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > Work on 'svn ls --search' has been completed now, > release notes and friends have been updated. > > -- Stefan^2. Thank you!

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

On 22.11.2017 14:21, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: On 22.11.2017 11:53, Julian Foad wrote: At the hackathon today we (me, Stefan Hett, Bert, Johan) have been talking about how to progress 1.10. We think all the features and changes are safe to release and are not going to get more testing until

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

On 22.11.2017 15:48, Evgeny Kotkov wrote: The other two features that I remember, are: * improved authz with support for wildcards * server-side search with `svn ls --search` Speaking of the `ls --search`, I think that there is an issue with the command-line parsing. Based on what I see, the

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

On 25/11/2017 22:14, Julian Foad wrote: > Julian Foad wrote: >> At the hackathon today we (me, Stefan Hett, Bert, Johan) have been >> talking about how to progress 1.10. > > It seems we have general consensus to move to an RC1. A few things > we'd like to fix but no real blockers -- nothing we

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

Julian Foad wrote: At the hackathon today we (me, Stefan Hett, Bert, Johan) have been talking about how to progress 1.10. It seems we have general consensus to move to an RC1. A few things we'd like to fix but no real blockers -- nothing we can't address during the RC phase. I volunteer to

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

I think you're misunderstanding me. I noted this in the conversation above: "One conflict option that's *not done yet* is one that merges a textual change from a path ^/trunk/B to a path ^/branch/A, after a move A -> B on trunk. I don't consider this a release blocker. We can always add this

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 03:53:02PM -0500, Paul Hammant wrote: > > > > > > > Is that a regression versus v1.9 and before? > > > > Far from it. > > This discussion is about the new conflict resovler added in 1.10. > > > > We can and always could perform such merges by manually specifying > > the

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

> > > > Is that a regression versus v1.9 and before? > > Far from it. > This discussion is about the new conflict resovler added in 1.10. > > We can and always could perform such merges by manually specifying > the paths, i.e. running a merge from ^/trunk/B to branch/A. > > The goal of the

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 10:55:02AM -0500, Paul Hammant wrote: > > > > > > One conflict option that's not done yet is one that merges a textual change > > from a path ^/trunk/B to a path ^/branch/A, after a move A -> B on trunk. > > I don't consider this a release blocker. We can always add this

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

> > > One conflict option that's not done yet is one that merges a textual change > from a path ^/trunk/B to a path ^/branch/A, after a move A -> B on trunk. > I don't consider this a release blocker. We can always add this option in > a patch release. > > Is that a regression versus v1.9 and

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

Stefan Sperling wrote on Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 13:41:11 +0100: > But I probably won't have time to help with preparations. Likewise.

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

Julian Foad wrote on Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 17:17:34 +0100: > Re. shelving... > > Branko Čibej wrote: > > Unless you're absolutely certain that the format and semantics of the > > CLI commands won't change, I do suggest adding an "experimental" warning > > to the help text. > > Done. Thanks. I

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

Re. shelving... Branko Čibej wrote: Unless you're absolutely certain that the format and semantics of the CLI commands won't change, I do suggest adding an "experimental" warning to the help text. Done. Thanks. - Julian

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

Re. shelving... Evgeny Kotkov wrote: Julian Foad writes: * shelving v1: is isolated -- doesn't affect anything else; is limited but already useful; will be changed in the next release so APIs are marked "SVN_EXPERIMENTAL"; changes shelved by this release could be

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

Julian Foad writes: > At the hackathon today we (me, Stefan Hett, Bert, Johan) have been talking > about how to progress 1.10. > > We think all the features and changes are safe to release and are not going > to get more testing until we produce a "release candidate". (For

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

On 22.11.2017 11:53, Julian Foad wrote: At the hackathon today we (me, Stefan Hett, Bert, Johan) have been talking about how to progress 1.10. We think all the features and changes are safe to release and are not going to get more testing until we produce a "release candidate". (For example,

Re: Subversion 1.10 RC1?

On 22.11.2017 11:53, Julian Foad wrote: > At the hackathon today we (me, Stefan Hett, Bert, Johan) have been > talking about how to progress 1.10. > > We think all the features and changes are safe to release and are not > going to get more testing until we produce a "release candidate". (For >

Subversion 1.10 RC1?

At the hackathon today we (me, Stefan Hett, Bert, Johan) have been talking about how to progress 1.10. We think all the features and changes are safe to release and are not going to get more testing until we produce a "release candidate". (For example, at that point Stefan will be able to