On 20.05.2014 16:19, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On 16 May 2014 21:27, Ben Reser <b...@reser.org> wrote: > [....] > >> To that end I'd like to branch no later than June 13th. Please figure out >> what >> blockers you have on a 1.9.0 release and have them appropriately flagged in >> the >> issue tracker by May 23rd. I'd like to see us having a decision on what >> we're >> going to do with those issues by June 6th. Then we can finish up with those >> issues (or be well on the way towards it) by June 13th. >> > Hi Ben > > I've filled the following issues per your request: > * Issue #4501 "Remove svn_fs_move() API" > http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4501
Why? It's an experimental API, and as such, doesn't prevent us from completely removing it or changing it at any time. Also, as far as I'm aware, it doesn't imply any changes in the storage layer. > * Issue #4502 "Remove FSFS7 disk format changes" > http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4502 Let's take your arguments one at a time: * 1. and 2. essentially say that bugs in new FSFS code can cause data corruption. True ... but this is true of /any/ change we make in the code. If we take this argument at face value, we may as well revert back to FSFSv1 to reduce the risks. I hope you'll agree that doesn't make any sense. What you need to do here is provide a plausible argument that the performance and storage improvements brought by FSFSv7 do not outweigh the increased risk of corruption. * You have a point about 3, but it's not an argument for removing FSFSv7 code; it's an argument for putting some effort into expanding the test suite. On that note, I have to ask: what have YOU done to make this happen, apart from telling others to write more tests? Do you have any specific suggestions for the kind of tests that would satisfy you? Note that FSFSv7 is no different in this respect than any other FSFS improvement in the past; so, for example, the lack of cross-version regression tests could be construed as an argument for blocking 1.9 even if FSFSv7 did not exist. * 4. is just another way of saying 1., 2., and 3.; all the comments above apply. * Your last point is, so sorry, just nonsense. It doesn't matter where some particular code was first written; the fact that logical addressing was extracted from FSX has no bearing whatsoever on the code quality, or on releasing FSFSv7. There is no code duplication in FSFS; on the contrary, the code duplication is in FSX, which is experimental and could change completely at some point; it's simply irrelevant to this discussion. -- Brane -- Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion WANdisco // Non-Stop Data e. br...@wandisco.com
