1.10.0-alpha3 queued

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

1.10.0-alpha3 queued

Daniel Shahaf-2
We now have 3+2 votes (with two from brane) so I've pushed 1.10.0-alpha3
to the mirrors.  Thanks to everyone who voted.

Since this is the first 1.10.x pre-release, this is a good time to
proofread docs/release-notes/1.10.html, and to commit any changes that
may have been pending.

In particular I'd like to call out the FSFS f8 change.  The email
announcement already mentions that we do not promise an upgrade path for
on-disk repositories to 1.10.0, but the release notes do not; I think it
would be good to have the release notes say that.

Cheers,

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

Re: 1.10.0-alpha3 queued

Daniel Shahaf-2
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, 25 Jul 2017 12:27 +0000:
> In particular I'd like to call out the FSFS f8 change.  The email
> announcement already mentions that we do not promise an upgrade path for
> on-disk repositories to 1.10.0, but the release notes do not; I think it
> would be good to have the release notes say that.

The mirrors' 24 hours are up, but the release notes are not yet updated.
Could someone get those please?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: 1.10.0-alpha3 queued

Evgeny Kotkov
Daniel Shahaf <[hidden email]> writes:

>> In particular I'd like to call out the FSFS f8 change.  The email
>> announcement already mentions that we do not promise an upgrade path for
>> on-disk repositories to 1.10.0, but the release notes do not; I think it
>> would be good to have the release notes say that.
>
> The mirrors' 24 hours are up, but the release notes are not yet updated.
> Could someone get those please?

I committed the initial version of the corresponding section in
  - https://svn.apache.org/r1803050 and
  - https://svn.apache.org/r1803054

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

Re: 1.10.0-alpha3 queued

Daniel Shahaf-2
Evgeny Kotkov wrote on Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:17 +0300:

> Daniel Shahaf <[hidden email]> writes:
>
> >> In particular I'd like to call out the FSFS f8 change.  The email
> >> announcement already mentions that we do not promise an upgrade path for
> >> on-disk repositories to 1.10.0, but the release notes do not; I think it
> >> would be good to have the release notes say that.
> >
> > The mirrors' 24 hours are up, but the release notes are not yet updated.
> > Could someone get those please?
>
> I committed the initial version of the corresponding section in
>   - https://svn.apache.org/r1803050 and
>   - https://svn.apache.org/r1803054

Thanks, Evgeny.

With my RM hat off, the text LGTM except that I think #fsfs-format8
should be mentioned under the #compatibility heading or linked from it,
since the behaviour of 'svnadmin create' (without --compatible-version)
has changed even for people who are agnostic to the lz4/zlib choice.

With my RM hat on, that's what I needed, I'll go ahead and announce
later today.

Cheers,

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

Re: 1.10.0-alpha3 queued

Evgeny Kotkov
Daniel Shahaf <[hidden email]> writes:

> With my RM hat off, the text LGTM except that I think #fsfs-format8
> should be mentioned under the #compatibility heading or linked from it,
> since the behaviour of 'svnadmin create' (without --compatible-version)
> has changed even for people who are agnostic to the lz4/zlib choice.

Makes sense.

How about we mention this change in how 'svnadmin create' behaves,
and also duplicate the warning about the no-upgrade-path policy for
pre-releases?

[[[
Index: publish/docs/release-notes/1.10.html
===================================================================
--- publish/docs/release-notes/1.10.html        (revision 1803054)
+++ publish/docs/release-notes/1.10.html        (working copy)
@@ -82,6 +82,14 @@ Subversion 1.10 servers can read and write to repo
 earlier versions.  To upgrade an existing server installation, just install
 newest libraries and binaries on top of the older ones.</p>

+<p>Please note that <tt>svnadmin create</tt> will by default create
+repositories using the new <a href="#fsfs-format8">filesystem format 8</a>.
+Until Subversion 1.10 is generally available, <b>no upgrade path is
+promised</b> for repositories with this new filesystem format.  Please do
+not use newly created repositories for any data meant for long-term
+safe-keeping.  See our <a href="/prerelease-caveats">policy for
+pre-releases</a> for additional information.</p>
+
 <p>Subversion 1.10 maintains API/ABI compatibility with earlier
 releases, by only adding new functions, never removing old ones.  A
 program written to any previous 1.x API can both compile
]]]


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

Re: 1.10.0-alpha3 queued

Daniel Shahaf-2
Evgeny Kotkov wrote on Wed, 26 Jul 2017 17:51 +0300:

> How about we mention this change in how 'svnadmin create' behaves,
> and also duplicate the warning about the no-upgrade-path policy for
> pre-releases?
>
> +++ publish/docs/release-notes/1.10.html        (working copy)
> @@ -82,6 +82,14 @@ Subversion 1.10 servers can read and write to repo
>  earlier versions.  To upgrade an existing server installation, just install
>  newest libraries and binaries on top of the older ones.</p>
>
> +<p>Please note that <tt>svnadmin create</tt> will by default create
> +repositories using the new <a href="#fsfs-format8">filesystem format 8</a>.
> +Until Subversion 1.10 is generally available, <b>no upgrade path is
> +promised</b> for repositories with this new filesystem format.  Please do
> +not use newly created repositories for any data meant for long-term
> +safe-keeping.  See our <a href="/prerelease-caveats">policy for
> +pre-releases</a> for additional information.</p>
> +
>  <p>Subversion 1.10 maintains API/ABI compatibility with earlier
>  releases, by only adding new functions, never removing old ones.  A
>  program written to any previous 1.x API can both compile

The text LGTM and it fits well in the flow.  I might've used a box for it,
but I suppose the <b/> tag does the job just as well.  (The thinking being
to make the warning stand out for users who skip the #compatibility
section, which hasn't changed in years.)

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

Re: 1.10.0-alpha3 queued

Evgeny Kotkov
Daniel Shahaf <[hidden email]> writes:

> The text LGTM and it fits well in the flow.  I might've used a box for it,
> but I suppose the <b/> tag does the job just as well.  (The thinking being
> to make the warning stand out for users who skip the #compatibility
> section, which hasn't changed in years.)

I tend to think that surrounding the statement with <b></b> is good enough
for this paragraph.  Committed in https://svn.apache.org/r1803066


Regards,
Evgeny Kotkov
Loading...