Hi Greg,
Any news on this?
I’m trying to find the list this discussion moved to.
Bert
From: Greg Stein [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: dinsdag 1 december 2015 22:20
To: Tony Stevenson <[email protected]>
Cc: David Nalley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
[bcc: dev@svn; switching lists...]
Yeah. I'll follow up to a more appropriate list, as we're getting into Infra
bits rather than svn bits :-)
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Tony Stevenson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
cc+= David Nalley (for oversight, the fact there is an 'issue', etc).
Hey Greg,
Sorry I didn't mean to use beta. You are indeed correct, as usual, they are
releases. :)
I will state again, that while I appreciate that differing versions of httpd
and/or subversion (and the libraries it uses) is far from a a trivial task for
us. This will essentially mean migrating and replacing the current EU slave to
bring it into line with the US master. You may recall that the US master move
(and therefore migration) was forced upon us when eris died over a year ago
now.
This forced move meant the host was put on a different OS, which introduced the
disparity between the EU and US today.
Fixing this is something that Infra would consider a project piece. i.e. not
something we can just slot in this week. Given the projects on the table
already, and the skills in Infra to to do the work being tied up in other
projects; it is going to be weeks before there is any available cycles to
address it.
I understand this might not be what you want to hear, but it is a fact of where
we are in terms of standardising, and automating everything.
With all that being said, I suspect you would not want us to deploy 1.9 onto a
single host (US) leaving the EU slave where it is now?
Tony
On Tue, 1 Dec 2015, at 08:45 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
We've *always* been willing to help.
Note these are not "beta" (like you said back in October). They are 1.9.x
release packages. We don't have to do a repository upgrade at this time, but we
may want to later. Note that you have different httpd packages on us and eu.
That should be fixed first. And then, yes: upgrading the server means upgrading
mod_dav_svn.
Part of the reason for upgrade is to get everybody better performance, but also
to bring us and eu into alignment. Having the write-through proxy be a
different stack is not "bad", but it certainly isn't Good.
Thanks,
-g
On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Tony Stevenson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Greg,
In principal this is fine, yes. If the *PMC* are going to vouch for these
binaries, and are willing to help support Infra if/when they are deployed.
Of course, I will re-iterate that Infra will roll back if any forward rolling
is catastrophic to the service. We are also likely to want to roll up the
repo, in to a tarball or some such before hitting the big red button. JIC we
need to roll back, and we cannot undo svnadmin upgrade (assuming such an action
is needed too).
Perhaps a crash course for the PMC about the stack as is, and how we get to a
deployed update is a good idea? Also, we'd like/need a JIRA issue for each
bump you want (to contain any notices about steps required, or library changes
and so on).
Will you expect us to roll dav_svn et al each time too? If so we should ensure
that your package names match those upstream in Ubuntu ( I assume James can
cope with that, given his email address ;) ).
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015, at 10:00 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
Does this work for you, Tony?
On Sat, Nov 28, 2015 at 10:04 PM, James McCoy <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 10:53:43AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
> Is somebody still working on this?
I had mentioned on IRC that I'd provide a PPA based on my Debian
packaging. I forgot to follow up and state that it's available:
https://launchpad.net/~jamessan/+archive/ubuntu/subversion
Cheers,
--
James
GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> >
Cheers
--
Tony
Cheers
--
Tony
