1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
14 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

Stefan Sperling-9
The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing.

The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on Windows.
The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on trunk@r1783880.

Full committers, please get this release from
https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
and add your signatures there.

Thank you!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

Evgeny Kotkov
Stefan Sperling <[hidden email]> writes:

> The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing.
>
> The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on Windows.
> The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on trunk@r1783880.
>
> Full committers, please get this release from
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
> and add your signatures there.

Just in case, I should be able to provide a signature at the beginning
of the next week.

(We have holidays here, and I think I'll be unavailable until then.)


Regards,
Evgeny Kotkov
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

Johan Corveleyn-3
In reply to this post by Stefan Sperling-9
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 1:54 PM, Stefan Sperling <[hidden email]> wrote:

> The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing.
>
> The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on Windows.
> The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on trunk@r1783880.
>
> Full committers, please get this release from
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
> and add your signatures there.
>
> Thank you!

Summary
-------
+1 to release

Platform
--------
Windows 7 SP1 (x64)
Microsoft Visual Studio 2013

Verified
--------
Signature and sha1 for subversion-1.10.0-alpha2.zip.

Contents of subversion-1.10.0-alpha2.zip are identical to tags/1.10.0-alpha2,
and to trunk@1783880 (except for expected differences in svn_version.h
and svnpubsub, svnwcsub and nominate.pl (symlinks vs. file contents), and
generated files).

Tested
------
[ Release build x86 ] x [ fsfs ] x [ file | svn | http ]

Results
-------
All tests pass, except patch #69 (add and remove executable file) because
it tickles the antivirus. This is a known test-suite issue,
see https://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2017-01/0075.shtml.

Dependencies
------------
Httpd 2.4.16
Apr 1.5.2
Apr-Util 1.5.4
OpenSSL 1.0.2k
Serf 1.3.9
SQLite 3.17.0.0
ZLib 1.2.11

Signature
---------

subversion-1.10.0-alpha2.zip:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=Ikvv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Johan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

Stefan
In reply to this post by Stefan Sperling-9
On 2/21/2017 13:54, Stefan Sperling wrote:

> The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing.
>
> The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on Windows.
> The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on trunk@r1783880.
>
> Full committers, please get this release from
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
> and add your signatures there.
>
> Thank you!
Building the new svnconflict tool I'm getting the following linker errors:

error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol svn_diff_version
error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol svn_delta_version

(that is: with Visual Studio 2015Up3).

Applying the attached patch resolves the build issue for me.

Regards,
Stefan


svnconflict_build.patch.txt (554 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

Johan Corveleyn-3
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 3:39 AM, Stefan <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 2/21/2017 13:54, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing.
>>
>> The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on Windows.
>> The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on trunk@r1783880.
>>
>> Full committers, please get this release from
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
>> and add your signatures there.
>>
>> Thank you!
>
> Building the new svnconflict tool I'm getting the following linker errors:
>
> error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol svn_diff_version
> error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol svn_delta_version
>
> (that is: with Visual Studio 2015Up3).
>
> Applying the attached patch resolves the build issue for me.

Maybe the __ALL_TESTS__ target for the Windows build should be updated
to include tools like svnconflict and svn-mergeinfo-normalizer? Then I
would have seen this failure as well, before signing the release. But
perhaps more importantly: maybe then buildbots would have seen this
problem, and stsp would have known this before rolling alpha2?

--
Johan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

svnconflict build failure on Windows (was: Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing)

Stefan Sperling
In reply to this post by Stefan
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 03:39:43AM +0100, Stefan wrote:

> On 2/21/2017 13:54, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing.
> >
> > The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on Windows.
> > The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on trunk@r1783880.
> >
> > Full committers, please get this release from
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
> > and add your signatures there.
> >
> > Thank you!
>
> Building the new svnconflict tool I'm getting the following linker errors:
>
> error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol svn_diff_version
> error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol svn_delta_version
>
> (that is: with Visual Studio 2015Up3).
>
> Applying the attached patch resolves the build issue for me.

Thanks! Does this patch work for you?

Index: tools/client-side/svnconflict/svnconflict.c
===================================================================
--- tools/client-side/svnconflict/svnconflict.c (revision 1784254)
+++ tools/client-side/svnconflict/svnconflict.c (working copy)
@@ -244,8 +244,6 @@ check_lib_versions(void)
       { "svn_client", svn_client_version },
       { "svn_wc",     svn_wc_version },
       { "svn_ra",     svn_ra_version },
-      { "svn_delta",  svn_delta_version },
-      { "svn_diff",   svn_diff_version },
       { NULL, NULL }
     };
   SVN_VERSION_DEFINE(my_version);
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: svnconflict build failure on Windows

Stefan
On 2/24/2017 11:35, Stefan Sperling wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 03:39:43AM +0100, Stefan wrote:
>> On 2/21/2017 13:54, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing.
>>>
>>> The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on Windows.
>>> The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on trunk@r1783880.
>>>
>>> Full committers, please get this release from
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
>>> and add your signatures there.
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>> Building the new svnconflict tool I'm getting the following linker errors:
>>
>> error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol svn_diff_version
>> error LNK2001: unresolved external symbol svn_delta_version
>>
>> (that is: with Visual Studio 2015Up3).
>>
>> Applying the attached patch resolves the build issue for me.
> Thanks! Does this patch work for you?
Yes, the patch solves the linker issue for me.

Regards,
Stefan




smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

Stefan
In reply to this post by Stefan Sperling-9
On 2/21/2017 13:54, Stefan Sperling wrote:

> The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing.
>
> The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on Windows.
> The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on trunk@r1783880.
>
> Full committers, please get this release from
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
> and add your signatures there.
>
> Thank you!
Summary
-------
    +1 to release

Platform
--------
    - Windows 10 (build 1511) 64-bit
    - Visual Studio 2015 Update 3

    - ActivePerl: 5.24.0.2400 (for OpenSSL)
    - AWK: 20070501
    - CMake 3.7.0 (for OpenSSL)
    - NASM 2.12.02 (for OpenSSL)
    - Python 2.7.12
    - SCons 2.5.1 (for Apache Serf)

Verified
--------
Signatures for subversion-1.10.0-alpha2.tar.bz2.
Signatures for subversion-1.10.0-alpha2.tar.gz.
Signatures for subversion-1.10.0-alpha2.zip.

Contents of subversion-1.10.0-alpha2.tar.bz2 equals contents of
subversion-1.10.0-alpha2.tar.gz.
Contents of subversion-1.10.0-alpha2.zip equals contents of
subversion-1.10.0-alpha2.tar.bz2 with the expected differences:
    - Windows vs. Linux line ending changes
    - non-Windows-specific generated files missing in zip archive
    - different time stamp in subversion\po\subversion.pot
Contents of subversion-1.10.0-alpha2.zip equals contents of
tags/1.10.0-alpha2 with the expected differences:
    - differences related to svn-keywords in files (URL, timestamps)
    - differences related to symlinks in nominate.pl, svnpubsub, svnwcsub
    - generated header files and subversion.pot file only present in zip
archive
    - excluded folders from zip archive: contrib, notes

Dependencies
------------
    - APR: 1.5.2 (patched with MAXSVN-42, MAXSVN-43, MAXSVN-94)
    - APRICONV: 1.2.1 (patched with MAXSVN-45, MAXSVN-46)
    - APRUTIL: 1.5.4 with Expat 2.2.0 (patched with MAXSVN-44,
MAXSVN-46, MAXSVN-47, MAXSVN-76, MAXSVN-94)
    - Apache httpd: 2.4.23 (patched with MAXSVN-48, MAXSVN-91)
    - Apache Serf: 1.3.9 (patched with MAXSVN-51, MAXSVN-84)
    - OpenSSL: 1.0.2j
    - PCRE: 8.39
    - SQLite: 3.15.1 (amalgamation)
    - ZLib: 1.2.8

Patches applied to SVN
----------------------
    - MAXSVN-59 (build file generation fix related to locating
apr-binaries in httpd/srclib-directory)
    - MAXSVN-65 (test fixes due to drive-letter issue)
    - MAXSVN-93 (disabled patch-test #69)

Patches mentioned above can be downloaded here:
http://www.luke1410.de:8090/browse/MAXSVN-94?jql=project%20%3D%20MAXSVN%20AND%20%22Patch%20Version%2Fs%22%20%3D%201.10.0-alpha2-1

Tested
------
    - [fsfs | fsx] x [ra_local | ra_svn | ra_serf (http) | ra_serf
(https)] x [64-bit] x [release]

Results
-------
    General issues (i.e. issues not specific to my test/build environment):
    - Build error when compiling svnconflict (already fixed on trunk) -
see
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/201702.mbox/%3C4ebc1679-0ef7-5932-59cd-d64dccf59daa%40posteo.de%3E
    - several tests deadlock, when testing fsx (circumventing by
applying the patch for MAXSVN-94) - see
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/201701.mbox/%3Cfc54e934-7135-18d5-84fa-8ec5695af3af%40gmx.de%3E

    Issues specific to my test/build environment:
    - Build error due to apr-detection issue (circumventing by applying
the patch for MAXSVN-59)- see
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/201607.mbox/%3Ce9a90843-fc66-e0ea-0e94-75ab89eefbc2%40posteo.de%3E
    - patch-test #69 failure due to AV interruption (circumventing by
applying the patch for MAXSVN-93) - see
https://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2017-01/0075.shtml
    - checkout-test #14 and update-test #31 failure due to drive letter
issue (circumventing by applying the patch for MAXSVN-65) - see
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/201607.mbox/%3Cf6f6e917-0b31-e87c-22e7-68cce2b601e9%40posteo.de%3E

Signatures
----------
subversion-1.10.0-alpha2.tar.bz2:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=4bm+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

subversion-1.10.0-alpha2.tar.gz:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=8cc8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

subversion-1.10.0-alpha2.zip:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=lfK/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Regards,
Stefan



smime.p7s (5K) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

Stefan Sperling-9
In reply to this post by Stefan Sperling-9
On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:54:15PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:

> The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing.
>
> The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on Windows.
> The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on trunk@r1783880.
>
> Full committers, please get this release from
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
> and add your signatures there.
>
> Thank you!

I am on the fence about actually releasing 1.10.0-alpha2.

I am a bit worried about announcing a new 1.8/1.9/1.10 release which does
not address any SHA1 issues. And I believe that 1.10 should do something
meaningful about SHA1 so the alpha is not feature complete and feels premature.

Does anyone share these concerns? If not, I can release alpha2 this week.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

Stefan Fuhrmann-3
On 06.03.2017 10:38, Stefan Sperling wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:54:15PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing.
>>
>> The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on Windows.
>> The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on trunk@r1783880.
>>
>> Full committers, please get this release from
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
>> and add your signatures there.
>>
>> Thank you!
> I am on the fence about actually releasing 1.10.0-alpha2.
>
> I am a bit worried about announcing a new 1.8/1.9/1.10 release which does
> not address any SHA1 issues. And I believe that 1.10 should do something
> meaningful about SHA1 so the alpha is not feature complete and feels premature.
>
> Does anyone share these concerns? If not, I can release alpha2 this week.
>
FWIW, the server-side fixes for FSFS should go up tonight.
FSX should follow soon and BDB is not affected, IIRC.

I think alpha3 would be a good idea. It would also fix the
svnconflict.c compilation issue making this a more
"rounded" release.

-- Stefan^2.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

Branko Čibej
On 06.03.2017 12:27, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:

> On 06.03.2017 10:38, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:54:15PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing.
>>>
>>> The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on
>>> Windows.
>>> The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on
>>> trunk@r1783880.
>>>
>>> Full committers, please get this release from
>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
>>> and add your signatures there.
>>>
>>> Thank you!
>> I am on the fence about actually releasing 1.10.0-alpha2.
>>
>> I am a bit worried about announcing a new 1.8/1.9/1.10 release which
>> does
>> not address any SHA1 issues. And I believe that 1.10 should do something
>> meaningful about SHA1 so the alpha is not feature complete and feels
>> premature.
>>
>> Does anyone share these concerns? If not, I can release alpha2 this
>> week.
>>
> FWIW, the server-side fixes for FSFS should go up tonight.
> FSX should follow soon and BDB is not affected, IIRC.

We never implemented rep sharing for BDB.

> I think alpha3 would be a good idea. It would also fix the
> svnconflict.c compilation issue making this a more
> "rounded" release.

+1


-- Brane
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

Johan Corveleyn-3
On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Branko Čibej <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 06.03.2017 12:27, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>> On 06.03.2017 10:38, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:54:15PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>>> The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing.
>>>>
>>>> The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on
>>>> Windows.
>>>> The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on
>>>> trunk@r1783880.
>>>>
>>>> Full committers, please get this release from
>>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
>>>> and add your signatures there.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you!
>>> I am on the fence about actually releasing 1.10.0-alpha2.
>>>
>>> I am a bit worried about announcing a new 1.8/1.9/1.10 release which
>>> does
>>> not address any SHA1 issues. And I believe that 1.10 should do something
>>> meaningful about SHA1 so the alpha is not feature complete and feels
>>> premature.
>>>
>>> Does anyone share these concerns? If not, I can release alpha2 this
>>> week.
>>>
>> FWIW, the server-side fixes for FSFS should go up tonight.
>> FSX should follow soon and BDB is not affected, IIRC.
>
> We never implemented rep sharing for BDB.
>
>> I think alpha3 would be a good idea. It would also fix the
>> svnconflict.c compilation issue making this a more
>> "rounded" release.
>
> +1

Agreed, addressing the SHA1 issues sounds important enough to wait
with the alpha until we have some meaningful fixes in there.

Apart from the server-side fix(es), I was under the impression that
the working copy also needed fixing (being able to store collisions in
the pristine store), and perhaps the ra_serf protocol?

--
Johan
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

Daniel Shahaf-2
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 12:52:03 +0100:

> On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Branko Čibej <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > On 06.03.2017 12:27, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> >> On 06.03.2017 10:38, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:54:15PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >>>> The new 1.10.1-alpha2 release is up for signing.
> >>>>
> >>>> The proposed 1.10.0-alpha1 release had a compilation problem on
> >>>> Windows.
> >>>> The alpha2 release should fix this problem. It is based on
> >>>> trunk@r1783880.
> >>>>
> >>>> Full committers, please get this release from
> >>>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
> >>>> and add your signatures there.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you!
> >>> I am on the fence about actually releasing 1.10.0-alpha2.
> >>>
> >>> I am a bit worried about announcing a new 1.8/1.9/1.10 release which
> >>> does
> >>> not address any SHA1 issues. And I believe that 1.10 should do something
> >>> meaningful about SHA1 so the alpha is not feature complete and feels
> >>> premature.
> >>>
> >>> Does anyone share these concerns? If not, I can release alpha2 this
> >>> week.
> >>>
> >> FWIW, the server-side fixes for FSFS should go up tonight.
> >> FSX should follow soon and BDB is not affected, IIRC.
> >
> > We never implemented rep sharing for BDB.
> >
> >> I think alpha3 would be a good idea. It would also fix the
> >> svnconflict.c compilation issue making this a more
> >> "rounded" release.
> >
> > +1
>
> Agreed, addressing the SHA1 issues sounds important enough to wait
> with the alpha until we have some meaningful fixes in there.
>

I think there are two separate questions here:

- Should we release alpha2

- Should we release alpha3 with sha1 fixes

I'm happy to join the consensus and +1 the latter.  However, I also +1
the former.  I don't see a reason to hold alpha2: it is rolled, it is
voted on, and being an alpha it comes with no compatibility strings
attached.  So I lean on the side on releasing alpha2 and indicating in
the release announcement (the mail to announce@ and the index.html
blurb) and an alpha3 is expected within ${timeframe} that will include
sha1 fixes.

> Apart from the server-side fix(es), I was under the impression that
> the working copy also needed fixing (being able to store collisions in
> the pristine store), and perhaps the ra_serf protocol?

And 'svnadmin load' — but why should we wait for all these to be
written?  It's not a release candidate, it's just an alpha, and we do
have features that we want users to test (stsp's conflicts work).

Cheers,

Daniel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 1.10.0-alpha2 is up for signing

Stefan Sperling
On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 01:19:00PM +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:

> I think there are two separate questions here:
>
> - Should we release alpha2
>
> - Should we release alpha3 with sha1 fixes
>
> I'm happy to join the consensus and +1 the latter.  However, I also +1
> the former.  I don't see a reason to hold alpha2: it is rolled, it is
> voted on, and being an alpha it comes with no compatibility strings
> attached.  So I lean on the side on releasing alpha2 and indicating in
> the release announcement (the mail to announce@ and the index.html
> blurb) and an alpha3 is expected within ${timeframe} that will include
> sha1 fixes.

Yes, we could do this, but...

The alpha release should be very attractive so that people will be
inclined to test it. Release announcements are the largest part of
our communication to the public. I believe the public is waiting for
SHA1 fixes from us because that problem was the latest thing they saw
in the news. An outdated alpha 2 release today would seem disappointing
compared to an alpha 3 next month which contains the same nice things
and contains SHA1 fixes, too.

> > Apart from the server-side fix(es), I was under the impression that
> > the working copy also needed fixing (being able to store collisions in
> > the pristine store), and perhaps the ra_serf protocol?
>
> And 'svnadmin load' — but why should we wait for all these to be
> written?  It's not a release candidate, it's just an alpha, and we do

Agreed that for an alpha it does not matter how many SHA1 issues we fix.
But I hope we can manage to provide a set of fixes in the next 1.8/1.9
patch releases to eliminate most concerns users may have about SHA1 issues.

The fact that 'svnadmin load' breaks if someone manages to commit these
PDF files makes me nervous because many users rely on 'svnadmin load' to
restore backups. SVN's reliability track record is a very strong selling
point and we should not gamble with that.

> have features that we want users to test (stsp's conflicts work).

We don't need these test results tomorrow. Within the next 2 or 3 months
works just fine. I think the SHA1 issues require more immediate attention
because they negatively affect the public's perception of Subversion.
The conflict code won't run away and will improve over time in any case.
Loading...