subversion-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bert Huijben" <>
Subject RE: Running SVN 1.9.x on ASF servers?
Date Thu, 21 Jan 2016 12:09:29 GMT
                Hi Greg,


Any news on this?


I’m trying to find the list this discussion moved to.




From: Greg Stein [] 
Sent: dinsdag 1 december 2015 22:20
To: Tony Stevenson <>
Cc: David Nalley <>
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 < <>
> 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? 








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.






On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Tony Stevenson < <>
> wrote:




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 < <>
> 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:



GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy < <>
















View raw message