On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 5:45 PM, Ivan Zhakov <i...@visualsvn.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: >> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 03:50:01PM +0400, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:40 PM, <s...@apache.org> wrote: >>> > Author: stsp >>> > Date: Fri Jun 14 14:40:17 2013 >>> > New Revision: 1493097 >>> > >>> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1493097 >>> > Log: >>> > Run tests with an exclusive lock on working copies. This should reduce >>> > test >>> > run time and also ensures that exclusive locking mode is tested. >>> > >>> > I've run ra_local and ra_serf tests with this change and got no failures. >>> > In any case, if there were any test failures with exlusive locking mode >>> > enabled, they'd most likely expose bugs in the test suite or Subversion >>> > itself. >>> > >>> I don't like this change actually: >>> 1. Running tests in different configuration than regular users are >>> using bad practice >> >> I did think about this before making the change. >> >> Your argument can be turned around. If we never test the exclusive >> locking mode, how can we be sure that it works? >> > Just make it optional and someone who interested in this particular > configuration will use it for testing. Or configure dedicated buildbot > for that. > >> And consider that, if a test passes with exclusive locking, it very >> likely passes with less restrictive locking. But the reverse is not true! >> Tests could fail in exclusive locking mode due to bugs in the tests >> or the code, and we would never see those failures until now. >> > No. It's just two different configuration and you cannot say that if > it pass in one configuration it also doesn't have problems with > another. > >>> 2. It also seems to broke svn benchmarks posted every week, because >>> now we get totally different numbers for operations. >> >> That's unfortunate. But what about things like server-side caching? >> Don't improvements in such areas have similar effects? I think having >> better test coverage and test speed is more important than keeping >> the benchmark results consistent over time. > Server-side caching is default configuration. I'm just asking your > keep running test suite in default configuration, which most (at least > 80%) users are using. > >> >>> Could you please make option to running test suite with exclusive >>> locking mode and leave it 'off' by default. Thanks! >> >> I could do that, yes. But it multiples the number of test configurations >> yet again, which I don't like. If we do this, I can switch my buildbot >> to use exclusive locks. And if the buildbot fails some day or we stop >> maintaining the bot, test coverage will get worse again because nobody >> tests exclusive mode anymore. So I'd rather have the default be 'on'. > Multiple tests configurations is great because every person/build can > right tests for different configuration. But default should be the > same as default Subversion configuration. > > I've reverted this change in r1496437. You may add test run option if you'd like to test Subversion with exclusive locking.
-- Ivan Zhakov CTO | VisualSVN | http://www.visualsvn.com
