Hi,
On 13 March 2013 18:51, kmra...@rockwellcollins.com wrote:
Doesn't Apache officially only support vc6 builds for httpd on Windows?
The ASF supports no binaries at all. Indeed Bill used to compile httpd
with VC6, but the plans are to go to newer compiler. You may have
noticed that there
On 13 March 2013 19:15, Bert Huijben b...@qqmail.nl wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Sergei Antonov [mailto:sap...@gmail.com]
Sent: woensdag 13 maart 2013 18:47
To: dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Windows build still requires apr-util?
Gentle reminder: VS 2010 doesn't
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Julian Foad julianf...@btopenworld.com wrote:
Hey, all. The CollabNetters were talking today about the status of our
codebase, and were trying to enumerate the things which are blocking the
1.8.x branch.
[..]
There are currently ten open issues marked
On 14.03.2013 12:18, phi...@apache.org wrote:
Author: philip
Date: Thu Mar 14 11:18:56 2013
New Revision: 1456394
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1456394
Log:
Pass SVN:Pool by reference otherwise a subpool gets created/destroyed
and the allocated memory becomes invalid.
Yikes. Thanks for
On 03/13/2013 10:15 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
The interesting case here is a file replaced with an identical file:
that's the only case where it's unchanged if ignoring ancestry but
otherwise it's changed.
This may, in fact, be the only case that's interesting to our discussion.
But I trust you
-Original Message-
From: Sergei Antonov [mailto:sap...@gmail.com]
Sent: donderdag 14 maart 2013 13:33
To: dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Windows build still requires apr-util?
On 13 March 2013 19:15, Bert Huijben b...@qqmail.nl wrote:
-Original Message-
-Original Message-
From: Ivan Zhakov [mailto:i...@visualsvn.com]
Sent: donderdag 14 maart 2013 13:35
To: Julian Foad
Cc: C. Michael Pilato; Subversion Development
Subject: Re: What's blocking the 1.8 branch?
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Julian Foad
julianf...@btopenworld.com
-Original Message-
From: Sergei Antonov [mailto:sap...@gmail.com]
Sent: donderdag 14 maart 2013 14:13
To: Bert Huijben
Subject: Re: Windows build still requires apr-util?
On 14 March 2013 13:44, Bert Huijben b...@qqmail.nl wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Sergei
On 03/14/2013 08:35 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
I think that issues #4329 and #4316 are the blocking ones. It will be
much better if we could fix these two issues before the branch.
I'm not trying to be contentious, but ... why before the branch? I guess if
we thought the solutions would require
On 03/14/2013 10:42 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
On 03/14/2013 08:35 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
I think that issues #4329 and #4316 are the blocking ones. It will be
much better if we could fix these two issues before the branch.
I'm not trying to be contentious, but ... why before the branch?
On 14 March 2013 15:00, Bert Huijben b...@qqmail.nl wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Sergei Antonov [mailto:sap...@gmail.com]
Sent: donderdag 14 maart 2013 14:13
To: Bert Huijben
Subject: Re: Windows build still requires apr-util?
On 14 March 2013 13:44, Bert Huijben b...@qqmail.nl
-Original Message-
From: Sergei Antonov [mailto:sap...@gmail.com]
Sent: donderdag 14 maart 2013 16:02
To: dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Windows build still requires apr-util?
On 14 March 2013 15:00, Bert Huijben b...@qqmail.nl wrote:
-Original Message-
On 14 March 2013 16:09, Bert Huijben b...@qqmail.nl wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Sergei Antonov [mailto:sap...@gmail.com]
Sent: donderdag 14 maart 2013 16:02
To: dev@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Windows build still requires apr-util?
On 14 March 2013 15:00, Bert Huijben
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 8:09 AM, Bert Huijben b...@qqmail.nl wrote:
In the current state we haven't started adding 2.X compatibility, as
officially it doesn't exist yet. (Anything can change until the first
released 2.X. There are no compatibly promises between major versions)
Unix build
Whenever we approach a release we always face the question: Which of
our open issues are blockers for the upcoming release? Obviously as
we approach 1.8, anything with a target milestone of 1.8.0 is
(supposedly) a blocker. But what about all the issues with the '---'
target milestone? Very old
Paul Burba wrote:
Whenever we approach a release we always face the question: Which of
our open issues are blockers for the upcoming release? Obviously as
we approach 1.8, anything with a target milestone of 1.8.0 is
(supposedly) a blocker. But what about all the issues with the '---'
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 08:09:45PM -, julianf...@apache.org wrote:
Author: julianfoad
Date: Thu Mar 14 20:09:44 2013
New Revision: 1456636
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1456636
Log:
* subversion/svn/svn.c
(svn_cl__cmd_table): In the help for 'svn resolve', add the missing value
17 matches
Mail list logo
