We have the option of running alphas on the mirror (harmonia/svn.eu) while leaving svn-master(eris) on 1.6.x.
The idea being that if eris runs a stable release it would require two bugs, rather than one, to corrupt both mirrors of a given repository. Hyrum K Wright wrote on Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 07:45:21 +0000: > Before we moved to the ASF, the Subversion project had a habit of > running our pre-releases on our live repository, and I wonder if there > would be benefits to putting the 1.7.0 alphas on svn.apache.org. > > The server-side of 1.7.0 has seen several enhancements, but unlike the > client, where much of the working copy library was rewritten, the > server-side improvements were largely incremental (and in some cases > they even replaced harmful "features"). As such, if feels like > testing 1.7.0 in the production ASF repository is a minimally risky > move, while providing several potential benefits. > > For the Subversion devs, the benefits of running the alpha series are > numerous: > * better testing on a large dataset, (with easy access to the admins > for better analysis) > * enable testing of client-side HTTPv2 in real-world usage > * smaller repo size by using revprop packing > * general pride of eating our own dogfood > > There are some drawbacks, however: > * frequent alpha releases could keep infra busy upgrading (but > turnaround on bugfixes should be fast) > * general hazards of running lightly-tested software (corruption, crashes, > etc) > Let's make this clear: the risk is corrupting the versioned filesystem. (The fsfs, not the zfs.) > I don't recall if we ran alphas on svn.collab.net during the 1.5 cycle > (we certainly ran RCs) and running the alphas in production might be a > bit premature. I'm not yet sure how I personally feel about it, but > just wanted to know how others felt, both from the Subversion > developer side, as well Infra. > > -Hyrum
