I agree, here, with Joe. Wondering if it's an appropriate alternative.
I'm facing similar, with a subproject entering incubation, and I'd like to
know our decision here, before I go and create a subproject structure
under /httpd/ that turns out to be wonky.
is /trunk/httpd/ an appropriate
At 10:50 PM 7/15/2004, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
I agree, here, with Joe. Wondering if it's an appropriate
alternative.
I'm facing similar, with a subproject entering incubation, and I'd
like to know our decision here, before I go and create a subproject
structure under /httpd/ that turns
On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 16:15, Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
On Jun 7, 2004, at 8:45 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
On Jun 6, 2004, at 10:42 PM, Geoffrey Young wrote:
FYI, Fitz did a conversion of apache-1.3, which is now located at
On Jun 7, 2004, at 8:45 AM, Bill Stoddard wrote:
Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
On Jun 6, 2004, at 10:42 PM, Geoffrey Young wrote:
FYI, Fitz did a conversion of apache-1.3, which is now located at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/test/httpd/. (in the test repository).
wow, that's a lot of data - 10
Bill Stoddard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
On Jun 6, 2004, at 10:42 PM, Geoffrey Young wrote:
FYI, Fitz did a conversion of apache-1.3, which is now located at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/test/httpd/. (in the test repository).
wow, that's a lot of data -
This is going to be a recurring problem. Geoff did the intuitive
thing, which turned out to be wrong. Not good.
Documentation issue... IMO, Sander should have added a note to his
conversion notice about how to checkout the trunk of the repository.
yeah, I'd agree with this - including
--On Monday, June 7, 2004 11:59 AM -0400 Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there a recommended client-side config setup?
Things like using ssh and authentication, etc...
You should use SSL instead of SSH, i.e. something like:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/apache-1.3/trunk/
And,
Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
Badda bing, badda boom. So my rsync fears were unfounded, it appears
it is trivial to mirror the repository?
I'm much more comfortable with that news. Is this more or less bandwidth
intensive than simply rsync'ing the repository files themselves?
Much much much much
On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 08:30:40PM -0500, Brian W. Fitzpatrick wrote:
On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 12:30, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
...
Badda bing, badda boom. So my rsync fears were unfounded, it appears
it is trivial to mirror the repository?
um. no. mirroring in this fashion is awful in the
On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 21:06, Greg Stein wrote:
Oops. Fitz mis-typed. Tags are O(1). Very cheap. Very fast.
Thanks, Greg. Dangers of replying to emails while eating dinner. :-)
-Fitz
Any which way, no matter how well tested subversion is; the fact that
various 3rd parties are willing to mirror our development repositories has
proved invaluable, and tragic when requests for those mirrors weren't
available (in time). Let's get the details worked out long before we all
agree
On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 20:52, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Sander Striker wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 14:13, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 23, 2004, at 4:01 PM, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:35:13AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
There's only one thing for us to
--On Monday, June 7, 2004 12:06 AM +0200 Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
FYI, Fitz did a conversion of apache-1.3, which is now located at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/test/httpd/. (in the test repository).
Looks good - +1.
We should probably import it as: /httpd/httpd-1.3 or
On Jun 6, 2004, at 5:16 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
One minor nit: I thought cvs2svn set the svn:ignore property and
tossed the .cvsignore files?
Not yet. http://cvs2svn.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=10
-Fitz
FYI, Fitz did a conversion of apache-1.3, which is now located at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/test/httpd/. (in the test repository).
wow, that's a lot of data - 10 minutes later and I'm still downloading...
I guess it goes without saying that most of the people here are intimate
with svn.
On Jun 6, 2004, at 10:42 PM, Geoffrey Young wrote:
FYI, Fitz did a conversion of apache-1.3, which is now located at
http://svn.apache.org/repos/test/httpd/. (in the test repository).
wow, that's a lot of data - 10 minutes later and I'm still
downloading...
Wait! No! You don't want to check
On May 23, 2004, at 4:01 PM, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:35:13AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
There's only one thing for us to decide; how to define the layout
under httpd/ in the SVN repository.
e.g.
.../
httpd/
trunk/
branches/
1.3.x/
2.0.x/
On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 14:13, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 23, 2004, at 4:01 PM, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:35:13AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
There's only one thing for us to decide; how to define the layout
under httpd/ in the SVN repository.
[...]
Fine here,
On May 24, 2004, at 5:13 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Sounds good. We should ponder a way to set up closed branches for
security patches. Maybe they could be protected on a case-by-case
basis, or we create a 4th top-level directory security-patches.
Fine here, but does httpd-2.x need to move over
Sander Striker wrote:
On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 14:13, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On May 23, 2004, at 4:01 PM, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:35:13AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
There's only one thing for us to decide; how to define the layout
under httpd/ in the SVN
On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 12:35:13AM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
There's only one thing for us to decide; how to define the layout
under httpd/ in the SVN repository.
e.g.
.../
httpd/
trunk/
branches/
1.3.x/
2.0.x/
tags/
2.0.49/
...
1.3.31/
On Sun, 2004-05-23 at 15:01, Manoj Kasichainula wrote:
Sounds good. We should ponder a way to set up closed branches for
security patches. Maybe they could be protected on a case-by-case basis,
or we create a 4th top-level directory security-patches.
Woo. I just wanted to point out how
* Joseph Dane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...Are the different tag directories necessarry or optional? Not that
every private tag gets its own...
in subversion, tag == copy.
this is probably the biggest conceptual difference between subversion
and
* Sander Striker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's only one thing for us to decide; how to define the layout
under httpd/ in the SVN repository.
e.g.
.../
httpd/
trunk/
branches/
1.3.x/
2.0.x/
tags/
2.0.49/
...
André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
...Are the different tag directories necessarry or optional? Not that
every private tag gets its own...
in subversion, tag == copy.
this is probably the biggest conceptual difference between subversion
and CVS.
--
joe
On Fri, 2004-05-14 at 18:47, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:54 PM +0200 André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to propose that the apache-1.3 tree be migrated over
to subversion.
I'm +1 on it.
+1. -- justin
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:54 PM +0200 André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to propose that the apache-1.3 tree be migrated over
to subversion.
I'm +1 on it.
+1. -- justin
On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:47:18AM -0700, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
--On Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:54 PM +0200 André Malo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to propose that the apache-1.3 tree be migrated over
to subversion.
I'm +1 on it.
+1.
* Jim Jagielski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd like to propose that the apache-1.3 tree be migrated over
to subversion.
I'm +1 on it.
nd
--
Real programmers confuse Christmas and Halloween because
DEC 25 = OCT 31. -- Unknown
(found in ssl_engine_mutex.c)
I'd like to propose that the apache-1.3 tree be migrated over
to subversion.
30 matches
Mail list logo
