On 2018/01/15 23:58:56 Philip Martin wrote:
> Julian Foad writes:
>
> > Julian Foad wrote:
> >> Another possible approach is to look for compatibility breakage by
> >> running the 1.9 client and test suite against the 1.10 libraries,
> >> and indeed different client/server version combinations.
>
Philip Martin wrote:
[...] I've looked at all the
errors that mixed 1.9-1.10 testing showed and I don't think any of them
are release critical.
That's good news indeed. Then compatibility testing is no longer
blocking the release.
For this particular test, the locking error
message, we mig
Philip Martin wrote:
Julian Foad writes:
Philip Martin wrote:
First I ran the 1.9 testsuite against 1.10 servers
over http:// and svn://. [...]
Philip, please can you tell me how you did this?
[...]
I also ran the 1.10 testsuite against 1.9 servers over http:// and
svn://. In order to ru
Julian Foad writes:
> It looks like the behaviour changes in 1.10 are intentional and Good.
>
> I think the test suite should be updated to accept the old error when
> the server is old, like this:
I suppose we could change the testsuite along these lines, but I don't
see it as something we have
Julian Foad writes:
> Philip Martin wrote:
>> First I ran the 1.9 testsuite against 1.10 servers
>> over http:// and svn://. [...]
>
> Philip, please can you tell me how you did this?
>
> [...]
>> I also ran the 1.10 testsuite against 1.9 servers over http:// and
>> svn://. In order to run the
Julian Foad writes:
> Philip Martin wrote:
>> First I ran the 1.9 testsuite against 1.10 servers
>> over http:// and svn://. [...]
>
> Philip, please can you tell me how you did this?
For http://
---
In the 1.9 build directory first run 1.9 davautocheck.sh:
APACHE_MPM=event .../subv
Philip Martin wrote:
First I ran the 1.9 testsuite against 1.10 servers
over http:// and svn://. [...]
Philip, please can you tell me how you did this?
[...]
I also ran the 1.10 testsuite against 1.9 servers over http:// and
svn://. In order to run the svn:// tests I had to disable part of
On 06.02.2018 16:39, Julian Foad wrote:
> if sbox.repo_url.startswith("http") and svntest.main.options.server_minor_ver
Nope; there are predicate functions for that.
svntest.main.is_ra_type_dav() in this case.
There's no predicate for the actual server version though.
-- Brane
I have requested a bit of work time to look at these issues.
Here's where I've got to with the first test failure.
Philip Martin wrote:
> 1.9 against a 1.10 server
> =
>
> First I ran the 1.9 testsuite against 1.10 servers
> over http:// and svn://. For http:// there wer
Julian Foad wrote on Tue, 16 Jan 2018 13:09 +:
> Philip Martin wrote:
> >> Julian Foad wrote:
> >>> Another possible approach is to look for compatibility breakage by
> >>> running the 1.9 client and test suite against the 1.10 libraries,
> >>> and indeed different client/server version combina
Philip Martin wrote:
Julian Foad wrote:
Another possible approach is to look for compatibility breakage by
running the 1.9 client and test suite against the 1.10 libraries,
and indeed different client/server version combinations.
I did this recently.
Thank you Philip! Extremely helpful.
If
Julian Foad writes:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> Another possible approach is to look for compatibility breakage by
>> running the 1.9 client and test suite against the 1.10 libraries,
>> and indeed different client/server version combinations.
I did this recently.
1.9 against a 1.10 server
Julian Foad wrote:
Any volunteers?
I have added this task to the pre-release check-list in
http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/releasing.html#release-branches
Filed as https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4716
If anyone has done or is doing any review please could you me
Julian Foad wrote:
One task in the 1.10 release process is reviewing API changes.
One way, that I use myself, is to take a library at a time and compare
the 1.9 and 1.10 public headers, looking for procedural errors (e.g. how
new and deprecated APIs are marked up, undocumented parameters, etc.
On Dec 5, 2017 10:27, "Julian Foad" wrote:
One task in the 1.10 release process is reviewing API changes.
One way, that I use myself, is to take a library at a time and compare the
1.9 and 1.10 public headers, looking for procedural errors (e.g. how new
and deprecated APIs are marked up, undocum
One task in the 1.10 release process is reviewing API changes.
One way, that I use myself, is to take a library at a time and compare
the 1.9 and 1.10 public headers, looking for procedural errors (e.g. how
new and deprecated APIs are marked up, undocumented parameters, etc.)
and for possible
16 matches
Mail list logo
