On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann
stefanfuhrm...@alice-dsl.de wrote:
Johan Corveleyn wrote:
On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann
stefanfuhrm...@alice-dsl.de wrote:
Hi @all,
I just finished my porting work; the performance branch
is now fully synchronized with
Hi,
I've taken the performance branch for a spin. Some of performance
increases are awesome (svn log is ~4 times faster on my machine
(tested with a file with 300 revisions)).
However, I also experienced a crash of svnserve, for both svn log
and svn blame of a big file with 2000 revisions (so
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Johan Corveleyn jcor...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
I've taken the performance branch for a spin. Some of performance
increases are awesome (svn log is ~4 times faster on my machine
(tested with a file with 300 revisions)).
However, I also experienced a crash of
On Fri, 2010-08-20, Greg Stein wrote:
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 13:58, julianf...@apache.org wrote:
...
+++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_neon/util.c Fri Aug 20 17:58:10
2010
...
-static ne_xml_parser *
+/* Create a status parser attached to the request REQ. Detected errors
+
Trying again with .txt extension added.
Johan
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 11:40 AM, Julian Foad julian.f...@wandisco.com wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-23, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
Either you forgot the attachments, or they were dropped by our mailing
sw. Try adding a .txt extension.
AFAIK, the mailing
jerenkra...@apache.org wrote on Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 22:57:26 -:
Author: jerenkrantz
Date: Sun Aug 22 22:57:26 2010
New Revision: 987956
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=987956view=rev
Log:
Add a compile-time version check for serf so we can reject old versions.
*
On Fri, 2010-08-20 at 20:01 +0200, Stefan Küng wrote:
On 20.08.2010 19:54, Julian Foad wrote:
* An 'external' or 'switched' WC node is an immediate child of a
versioned WC directory. [3]
Don't forget that an external does not necessarily have a versioned WC
dir as its immediate
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 10:25 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote on Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:12:14 +0530:
Hi,
I sent a patch a while ago for svn_repos_parse_dumpstream3. While I
wait for approval, this is an RFC patch describing my future plan once
that patch gets
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name wrote:
Does this actually expand SERF_VERSION_STRING? A quick independent test
indicates it wouldn't...
Ah, you're right. Hmm. Any ideas? -- justin
Justin Erenkrantz wrote on Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 06:18:14 -0700:
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name
wrote:
Does this actually expand SERF_VERSION_STRING? A quick independent test
indicates it wouldn't...
Ah, you're right. Hmm. Any ideas? -- justin
Hi Julian,
Julian Foad writes:
On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 10:25 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote on Thu, Aug 19, 2010 at 11:12:14 +0530:
Hi,
I sent a patch a while ago for svn_repos_parse_dumpstream3. While I
wait for approval, this is an RFC patch describing my
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 11:23:00AM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Julian Foad julian.f...@wandisco.com wrote:
Stefan Sperling wrote:
It does not seem possible right now to merge into locally added
files, because the Subversion assumes that the merge target will
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:32:06PM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Julian Foad julian.f...@wandisco.com wrote:
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 11:23 -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Julian Foad julian.f...@wandisco.com
wrote:
if the tree conflict
Thanks for this feedback, Bert. Several important points are emerging.
The first thing to get straight is what future we want for file
externals. File externals should behave like directory externals. The
directory externals system is far from a perfect solution to the
high-level challenges
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 18:43 +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:32:06PM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Julian Foad julian.f...@wandisco.com
wrote:
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 11:23 -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:52 AM,
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Stefan Sperling s...@elego.de wrote:
One more question: In case a file/directory has been copied, does that
affect its implicit mergeinfo in any way?
Definitely, a copy *has* implicit mergeinfo, whereas a local addition has none.
Think of it like this:
Do a
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 18:40 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
On Mon, 2010-08-23 at 18:43 +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Wed, Aug 04, 2010 at 12:32:06PM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Julian Foad julian.f...@wandisco.com
wrote:
On Wed, 2010-08-04 at 11:23 -0400,
Hrm. I'm not seeing the connection here. I'm looking for a way to pull off
a Rewrite condition based on the existence of a given URI. The docs imply
that this can be done with RewriteCond SOME_URI -U, but appear to just be
wrong -- the existence of SOME_URI doesn't appear to tested at all, only
Ohohohoh! Now that sounds promising! Will give that a shot.
On 08/23/2010 01:50 PM, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Why do you want mod_rewrite at all?Enabling that mod_mime
directive will let mod_autoindex remap / to /index.html when it exists
in the virtual filesystem. -- justin
On Mon,
-Original Message-
From: phi...@apache.org [mailto:phi...@apache.org]
Sent: maandag 23 augustus 2010 13:23
To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
Subject: svn commit: r988074 - in
/subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline: svntest/wc.py
upgrade_tests.py
Author: philip
Date: Mon
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Stefan, you did mention Patch by for Johan's patches which you
committed, did you intend to mention Found by or Suggested by for
the other two (quoted below)?
http://subversion.apache.org/docs/community-guide/conventions.html#crediting
Thanks,
Daniel
Oh, I just was
On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann
stefanfuhrm...@alice-dsl.de wrote:
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Stefan, you did mention Patch by for Johan's patches which you
committed, did you intend to mention Found by or Suggested by for
the other two (quoted below)?
On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 06:40:39PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
You seem to be talking only about the case where the (locally added)
target is the root of the whole merge, and saying that lack of ancestral
relationship between the source node and this target node doesn't
matter. Maybe the user
23 matches
Mail list logo
