A belated +1 on this! Thanks for this simple yet huge usability
enhancement, Paul.
- Julian
On Wed, 2010-04-14, Paul Burba wrote:
> One merge related item that came up was: '--reintegration should
> tolerate sparse checkouts that aren't affected'.
>
> I created issue #3603 to track this.
>
>
s...@apache.org writes:
> Author: stsp
> Date: Thu Apr 15 22:18:59 2010
> New Revision: 934627
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=934627&view=rev
> Log:
> Reintegrate the svn-patch-improvements branch into trunk.
> + /* Rebuild the empty dirs list, replacing empty dirs which have
> +
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:08:15AM +0100, Philip Martin wrote:
> s...@apache.org writes:
>
> > Author: stsp
> > Date: Thu Apr 15 22:18:59 2010
> > New Revision: 934627
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=934627&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Reintegrate the svn-patch-improvements branch into trun
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:18:58PM -0500, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> 1.6.11 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r934486:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~hwright/svn/1.6.11/
>
> This differs very little from 1.6.10, but it does have important fixes which
> have been spot tested. Please do you stan
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:08:15AM +0100, Philip Martin wrote:
> > s...@apache.org writes:
> >
> > > Author: stsp
> > > Date: Thu Apr 15 22:18:59 2010
> > > New Revision: 934627
> > >
> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=934627&view=rev
> > > Log:
> > > Reintegrate
Julian Foad writes:
> Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:08:15AM +0100, Philip Martin wrote:
>> > s...@apache.org writes:
>> >
>> > > Author: stsp
>> > > Date: Thu Apr 15 22:18:59 2010
>> > > New Revision: 934627
>> > >
>> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=934627&view=r
Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
> Philip Martin wrote:
>> Stefan Fuhrman writes:
>>
>>
>>> svn_cache_t lookup returns a copy of the value found.
>>> For objects of variable size, this can be expensive. If you
>>> checkout / export all N files of a specific directory, for
>>> instance, every single pat
Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> 1.6.11 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r934486:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~hwright/svn/1.6.11/
Summary:
+1 to release.
Platform:
Ubuntu 9.04 (jaunty) Linux.
Tested:
1.6.11 tarball with local dependencies (not from deps tarball)
((neon,serf,local
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 5:38 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Julian Foad writes:
>
> > Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:08:15AM +0100, Philip Martin wrote:
> >> > s...@apache.org writes:
> >> >
> >> > > Author: stsp
> >> > > Date: Thu Apr 15 22:18:59 2010
> >> > > New Revision: 9
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:38:41AM +0100, Philip Martin wrote:
> Julian Foad writes:
> > Just write "arr->nelts = 0;" (which is the entire body of
> > apr_array_clear()) and don't introduce an ifdef.
I'm a bit sceptical.
Do we really want to rely on implementation details like
"arr->nelts = 0" in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/15/2010 10:48 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> 1.6.11 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r934486:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~hwright/svn/1.6.11/
Summary:
+1 to release (Unix)
Tested:
1.6.11 tarball with local dependencies (nothing fr
Stefan Sperling writes:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:38:41AM +0100, Philip Martin wrote:
>> Julian Foad writes:
>> > Just write "arr->nelts = 0;" (which is the entire body of
>> > apr_array_clear()) and don't introduce an ifdef.
>
> I'm a bit sceptical.
> Do we really want to rely on implementat
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:06 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 12:18:58PM -0500, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> 1.6.11 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r934486:
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~hwright/svn/1.6.11/
>>
>> This differs very little from 1.6.10, but it does have impo
The Neon and Serf tests on Windows both have one failure. It could be
nothing. I think I have something wrong with my Python environment at
the moment. Here is output from the log. All other tests passed:
CMD: svnadmin.exe create "svn-test-work\repositories\svnlook_tests-11"
--bdb-txn-nosync "
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 17:38, wrote:
> Author: danielsh
> Date: Thu Apr 15 21:38:14 2010
> New Revision: 934599
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=934599&view=rev
> Log:
> Update the svn_atomic__init_once() interface to take a baton, and update all
> callers. The new caller (that needs t
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> The Neon and Serf tests on Windows both have one failure. It could be
> nothing. I think I have something wrong with my Python environment at
> the moment. Here is output from the log. All other tests passed:
Mark,
I saw the exact sam
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 09:45:16AM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
> I just double checked this test, running with both a debug and release
> build, both pass.
>
> You probably already noticed, but the dry-run and full-merge outputs
> are semantically equivalent. The only differences are the ordering of
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:29 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>
>> The Neon and Serf tests on Windows both have one failure. It could be
>> nothing. I think I have something wrong with my Python environment at
>> the moment. Here is output from th
SUMMARY:
+1 to release
PLATFORM:
Windows Vista SP2
VS 2008 SP1
Java 1.6
COMPONENTS:
Apache2.2.11
APR 1.3.5
APR-UTIL1.3.7
OpenSSL 0.9.8k
Neon(from deps)
Serf (from deps)
ZLib (from deps)
SQLite (from deps)
VERIF
Greg Stein wrote on Fri, 16 Apr 2010 at 10:48 -0400:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 17:38, wrote:
> > Author: danielsh
> > Date: Thu Apr 15 21:38:14 2010
> > New Revision: 934599
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=934599&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Update the svn_atomic__init_once() interface to
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 09:45:16AM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
>> I just double checked this test, running with both a debug and release
>> build, both pass.
>>
>> You probably already noticed, but the dry-run and full-merge outputs
>> are semantically equivalent. The only di
"Hyrum K. Wright" writes:
> 1.6.11 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r934486:
>
> http://people.apache.org/~hwright/svn/1.6.11/
Summary:
+1 to release.
Platform:
Linux (Debian/stable).
Verified:
signatures, MD5 checksums, SHA1 checksums
only expected difference compared to br
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 7:39 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:38:41AM +0100, Philip Martin wrote:
> > Julian Foad writes:
> > > Just write "arr->nelts = 0;" (which is the entire body of
> > > apr_array_clear()) and don't introduce an ifdef.
>
> I'm a bit sceptical.
> Do we
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote on Fri, 16 Apr 2010 at 10:48 -0400:
> > On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 17:38, wrote:
> > > Author: danielsh
> > > Date: Thu Apr 15 21:38:14 2010
> > > New Revision: 934599
> > >
> > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=934599&view=rev
> > > Log:
> > > Update th
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:50:22AM -0500, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> This was causing some of the buildbots not to be able to build, so I went
> ahead and committed a fix in r934969.
Thanks!
Stefan
> -Original Message-
> From: hy...@hyrumwright.org [mailto:hy...@hyrumwright.org] On Behalf
> Of Hyrum K. Wright
> Sent: donderdag 15 april 2010 19:19
> To: Subversion Development
> Subject: 1.6.11 tarballs up for testing/signing
>
> 1.6.11 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r934486:
>
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 17:38, wrote:
> > Author: danielsh
> > Date: Thu Apr 15 21:38:14 2010
> > New Revision: 934599
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=934599&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Update the svn_atomic__init_once() interface to
On Thu, 2010-04-15, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> 1.6.11 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r934486:
Summary:
+1 to release (Unix).
Tested:
[ bdb | fsfs ] x [ ra_local | ra_svn | ra_neon | ra_serf ]
swig-pl
swig-py
swig-rb
ctypes-python
Environment:
OS/Platform:
Ubuntu 9.10,
Paul Burba wrote:
>> Do we have that kind of data and opportunity available?
>
> From Stefan's reply elsewhere in this thread I gather the answer is
> currently no re the data. Re the opportunity, not sure I totally
> understand you there, but at the very end of
> libsvn_client/merge.c:do_directo
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, 16 Apr 2010 at 02:01 +0300:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, 16 Apr 2010 at 00:52 +0300:
> > (probably need some coffee)
>
> Indeed. The other two svn_fs_fs__* functions in rep-cache.c still check
> rep_cache_db (not rep_cache_db_opened). Which makes me wonder if there's
This is another one of those 'migrating to the ASF' emails. If you don't
care about such things, you may stop reading.
This latest release has given me a chance to think about the post-ASF future
of the release process. Currently, we are still hosting our tarballs on
s.t.o, with the expectation
I'm happy to announce Subversion 1.6.11, available from:
http://subversion.tigris.org/downloads/subversion-1.6.11.tar.bz2
http://subversion.tigris.org/downloads/subversion-1.6.11.tar.gz
http://subversion.tigris.org/downloads/subversion-1.6.11.zip
http://subversion.tigris.org/downlo
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:45 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 09:45:16AM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
>>> I just double checked this test, running with both a debug and release
>>> build, both pass.
>>>
>>> You probably already noticed, but the dry-run
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:41 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> Ok, that looks fine (to me at any rate). But if you look at the test,
> you might notice that merge_tests-63.files/mu doesn't actually have
> any mergeinfo prior to the merge, nor does the root
> merge_tests-63.files for that matter. What is
I've committed my patch to get entry_t out of
svn_client__get_revision_number() in r935095 -- review would be much
appreciated.
~Neels
35 matches
Mail list logo
