[tahoe-dev] tahoe-lafs 1.9.1 shipped in the next Debian stable

[Zooko Wilcox-O'Hearn]

Dear Bertagaz:

We're almost ready to release Tahoe-LAFS v1.9.2, and I wonder if it is
okay to take a couple more days for extra testing or if we should
hurry and finalize it so you can package it for Debian?

We've fixed all but one of the issues that we intended to fix. You can
see the issue tickets here:

https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/milestone/1.9.2

The one serious issue that isn't fixed yet is

https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1670# KeyError in mutable retrieve

We know of a bug in the code (dict instead of tuple being returned
from get_verinfo() of MDMFs), but we're not sure if that bug is
causing that failure. There is no unit test currently demonstrating
that failure.

We prefer not to fix bugs when we don't have a unit test that goes
from red to green by that fix, so if it won't make us miss the Debian
deadline, I'd like to take a couple more days to figure out how to
write a unit test of #1670. Then we'll find out if the
dict-instead-of-tuple bug is causing #1670 or not.

Also I'm doing an experiment of converting all of the existing unit
tests from using SDMFs to using MDMFs as a way to find any bugs in
MDMFs. So far I haven't found any more bugs in MDMFs that way.
(Because there were already quite a few tests of MDMFs.)

Also, it would be great to have some actual users try out 1.9.2 before
we finalize it. Users! You can do this right now if you're willing to
use darcs to fetch the source. This is actually painless -- you just
acquire darcs (http://wiki.darcs.net/Binaries) and then you run

darcs get --lazy https://tahoe-lafs.org/source/tahoe-lafs/1.9.2

Then you never have to touch darcs again.

That command takes about 60 seconds to run.

Oh, but it might fail if the darcs binary you got is incapable of
handling HTTPS. In that case, you give up and complain to us and we'll
post some tar.gz files for you to try out...

Regards,

Zooko