1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1VAnVI-0004vP-1u
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 17 Aug 2013 20:53:44 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.223.174 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.223.174; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ie0-f174.google.com;
Received: from mail-ie0-f174.google.com ([209.85.223.174])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VAnVG-0002ZP-8R
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 17 Aug 2013 20:53:43 +0000
Received: by mail-ie0-f174.google.com with SMTP id w15so5210052iea.5
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 17 Aug 2013 13:53:37 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.124.10 with SMTP id me10mr2174956igb.40.1376772816866;
Sat, 17 Aug 2013 13:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.50.73.74 with HTTP; Sat, 17 Aug 2013 13:53:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20130816095243.GA11181@savin>
References: <201308160939.29864.luke@dashjr.org> <20130816095243.GA11181@savin>
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 22:53:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBiGotwQRb28XeAqX=5wOLa_EjAoWAzTzjPmWMMxz_Hykg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(pieter.wuille[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1VAnVG-0002ZP-8R
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] LevelDB in master
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2013 20:53:44 -0000
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 09:39:16AM +0000, Luke-Jr wrote:
>> Now-merged pull request #2702 appears to have put the master branch on an
>> unofficial Ripple fork of LevelDB, rather than merely updating us to LevelDB
>> 1.12.0. While Vinnie did somewhat disclose this, I don't see any evidence the
>> nature of this was fully understood by others. As I understood the pull
>> request, the "Ripple and Bitcoin fork" was just LevelDB with the changes we
>> had already made. Mike's comments on the pull request (his audit) suggest that
>> this may have been the case in an earlier revision of it. But in fact, there
>> appear to be a number of other changes included in what was finally merged a
>> few weeks ago. Furthermore, Ripple's fork did not do a proper git merge of
>> upstream, thus there is a break in git history, and, more importantly, a
>> number of upstream fixes (including some we have had reported to the Bitcoin
>> issue tracker) were not included in this merge.
>>
>> I've pushed three branches to https://github.com/luke-jr/leveldb :
>> bitcoin-1.5 Our old/unreleased LevelDB 1.5 fork, for reference
>> bitcoin Our LevelDB 1.7 fork, included in 0.8.x
>> bitcoin-up Our LevelDB 1.7 fork, merged with upstream LevelDB 1.12
>>
>> A diff from current master (Ripple LevelDB 1.12 fork) to bitcoin-up:
>> https://gist.github.com/luke-jr/6248543
Thanks for investigating this. I guess it's my fault for not checking
the diff before the final merge. I guess the simultaneous switch to a
git-subtree'd leveldb made it harder to review.
In any case, the changes seem harmless, but I think we should revert
to a codebase as close as possible to upstream LevelDB 1.12. The diff
you have between bitcoin head and bitcoin-up shows a few reverted
patches that we included during 0.9's merge window, a patch by ripple
to add a compaction delay (which they seem to have reverted now too)
and one weird ripple-specific commit (which just seems to remove
issue178_test.cc).
I've put a cleaned-up history of the LevelDB subtree in the
http://github.com/bitcoin/leveldb repository (branch bitcoin-fork),
and then used git-subtree to create a pull request (#2907) which
switches our src/leveldb directory to this tree. It correctly lists
the reverted (and sometimes re-applied) changes in the squashed commit
(please review!). The actual diff corresponds to the diff you
produced, with the reverted changes in our repository re-applied.
--
Pieter
|
