On 07/15/2011 10:53 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > Sorry, guys -- I've been watching the messages flying back and forth, but > haven't been able to discern a key piece of information from them: > > Is this a regression? > > I ask because I test all our releases the same way, and 1.7.0-alpha3 did > *not* exhibit this problem I reported where 1.7.0-beta1 does. Now, it's > possible that there was a small difference in my testing approach this time, > namely that I might have actually installed the compiled product on my > system instead of merely running the tests having *not* done 'make install > install-pl ...'. > > I'll start over from scratch to see if skipping the install step (which, > again, I typically do) makes the difference.
Yep, it matters. That one difference in my test routine caused the problem. So, Hyrum, you have my +1 for this release: Summary: +1 to release. Platform: Ubuntu 10.04 (lucid) Linux. Tested: (local, svn, neon, serf) x (bdb, fsfs) + py + py + pl + rb + javahl Results: All tests pass. MD5 Checksums: 34686ebaba49bcf98206acb4e020ae6a subversion-1.7.0-beta1.tar.gz 8b184d9484f10edb6d5921e050d9d69b subversion-1.7.0-beta1.tar.bz2 GPG Signatures (left-aligned because Hyrum likes it that way): ::: subversion-1.7.0-beta1.tar.gz ::: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk4fFt0ACgkQokEGqRcG/W4D1QCbBJI+R8A/3UKZXgzrgbXGLTYC L90An0iS1ebHvf5RMGmHprphgmuieaTD =Q3l6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ::: subversion-1.7.0-beta1.tar.bz2 ::: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk4fFuAACgkQokEGqRcG/W7/FwCfR9YzGu/aEzV4+8PIZRpp5rXj maAAn06ZNy/Z9PKDHdaPLTnQTv3kh/8U =dZch -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
