tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25

check/test/update claim about compatibility with old clients and servers in relnotes.txt #1773

New issue

Closed

opened 2012-06-18 19:59:06 +00:00 by davidsarah · 5 comments

davidsarah commented

2012-06-18 19:59:06 +00:00

Owner

From /tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/8046#comment:9 :

relnotes.txt says:

Servers from this release can serve clients of all versions back to v1.0 and clients from this release can use servers of all versions back to v1.0.

which I believe is already incorrect, although I can't remember why not. Should we be making this claim when we don't test it?

From [/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/8046](/tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25/issues/8046)#comment:9 : > relnotes.txt says: > > > Servers from this release can serve clients of all versions back to v1.0 and clients from this release can use servers of all versions back to v1.0. > > which I believe is already incorrect, although I can't remember why not. Should we be making this claim when we don't test it?

tahoe-lafs added the

labels 2012-06-18 19:59:06 +00:00

tahoe-lafs added this to the 1.10.0 milestone 2012-06-18 19:59:06 +00:00

marlowe commented

2013-03-15 03:12:14 +00:00

Author

Owner

A couple of questions as we come up to 1.10.

Do we wish to test compatibility and if so, how far back?
If we don't desire to test this, do we want to simply remove the statement all together or add a "should" into the statement?

A couple of questions as we come up to 1.10. 1) Do we wish to test compatibility and if so, how far back?<br> 2) If we don't desire to test this, do we want to simply remove the statement all together or add a "should" into the statement?

ClashTheBunny commented

2013-03-15 07:48:47 +00:00

Author

Owner

We don't anymore. It used to be done. Here's zooko's statement on this:

It would be cool for someone to set up to run inter-node regression tests of various versions.

Yes, that would! I value backward-compatibility, because I recognize
that people are often more conservative about storage than about other
kinds of software.

There used to be a thing called Memory Lane:

https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/TestGrid?version=54

But it needs a maintainer:

https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1002# do some
renovations on Memory Lane

That would be a pretty cool thing to have on the live Test Grid, so if
you had a question like "What happens if you upload a new
XSalsa20-encrypted file using Tahoe-LAFS v14.1 to a grid with one
Tahoe-LAFS storage server of each version going back a few years:
1.10.0, 1.9.2, 1.8.3, 1.7.1, 1.6.1, 1.5, 1.4.1, 1.3, 1.2, 1.1, and
1.0, what happens?", then you can just try it and see! (Hopefully the
answer is It Just Works because the storage servers don't know what
kind of encryption you are using on the client side. ☺)

We don't anymore. It used to be done. Here's zooko's statement on this: > > It would be cool for someone to set up to run inter-node regression tests of various versions. > > Yes, that would! I value backward-compatibility, because I recognize > that people are often more conservative about storage than about other > kinds of software. > > There used to be a thing called Memory Lane: > > <https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/wiki/TestGrid?version=54> > > But it needs a maintainer: > > <https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1002># do some > renovations on Memory Lane > > That would be a pretty cool thing to have on the live Test Grid, so if > you had a question like "What happens if you upload a new > XSalsa20-encrypted file using Tahoe-LAFS v14.1 to a grid with one > Tahoe-LAFS storage server of each version going back a few years: > 1.10.0, 1.9.2, 1.8.3, 1.7.1, 1.6.1, 1.5, 1.4.1, 1.3, 1.2, 1.1, and > 1.0, what happens?", then you can just try it and see! (Hopefully the > answer is It Just Works because the storage servers don't know what > kind of encryption you are using on the client side. ☺)

marlowe commented

2013-03-15 13:45:16 +00:00

Author

Owner

Okay, I will make the appropriate change to the documentation and submit a patch tonight.

zooko commented

2013-04-04 16:27:40 +00:00

Author

Owner

to close this, we need only a minor patch to the docs. Brian is taking over this for the 1.10 release.

Brian Warner <warner@lothar.com> commented

2013-04-04 20:48:12 +00:00

Author

Owner

In changeset:a216145a2e9be4b0:

relnotes: soften compatibility claims until we have test infrastructure for them

Closes #1773

In changeset:a216145a2e9be4b0: ``` relnotes: soften compatibility claims until we have test infrastructure for them Closes #1773 ```

tahoe-lafs added the

fixed

label 2013-04-04 20:48:12 +00:00

Brian Warner <warner@lothar.com> closed this issue

2013-04-04 20:48:12 +00:00

No labels

LeastAuthority.com automation

code-frontend-ftp-sftp

code-frontend-magic-folder

somebody else's problem

No milestone

No project

No assignees

1 participant

Notifications

Due date

The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: tahoe-lafs/trac-2024-07-25#1773

No description provided.