On 2/1/11 3:47 PM, s...@apache.org wrote:
Author: stsp
Date: Tue Feb 1 23:47:37 2011
New Revision: 1066276
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1066276&view=rev
Log:
Follow-up to 1066249: Unbreak build with thread-less APR.
* subversion/libsvn_subr/io.c
(FILE_LOCK_RETRY_LOOP): Declare corre
Johan,
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Johan Corveleyn
> wrote:
> > it continues until test nr 58, and then gives the popup.
> >
> > Hm, I'm confused. I guess I'm going to fire up my debugger and set a
> > breakpoint or something to see
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 13:28:24 +0100:
> So: I've tried removing SVN_USE_WIN32_CRASHHANDLER from gen_win.py
> (put it in comment, ran "nmake config" and rebuilt everything), then
> ran update_tests.py again: same result. It still crashes, and shows
> the ugly blocking popup.
Paul Burba writes:
> Hi All,
>
> One of the roadmap items yet to be started was a 'test review' to
> 'Determine which XFail and WIP tests should remain so, and which need
> to be fixed before release.'
>
> I took a look at this today. We currently have 61 tests set to XFail
> (2 of these are WIP
Noorul Islam K M writes:
> Daniel Shahaf writes:
>
>> Noorul Islam K M wrote on Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:27:46 +0530:
>>
>>> Daniel Shahaf writes:
>>>
>>> > Looks good, but I have a question:
>>> >
>>> > Noorul Islam K M wrote on Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 13:12:54 +0530:
>>> >>
>>> >> Attached is t
> LISTING: merge_tests.py
>
You missed:
merge_tests.py:
XFail(SkipUnless(merge_change_to_file_with_executable,
merge_tests.py-svntest.main.is_posix_os)),
which Daniel Becroft (CC'd) recently added, and has submitted a patch
that seeks to fix the und
> LISTING: export_tests.py
>
> 20XFAIL exporting a file refuses to silently overwrite
> Issue #: None
> Target Milestone: N/A
> Thread: N/A
> Log: r1037998
> Point Person: danielsh
>
I'm not sure the test is valid --- doesn't it need a "--force" added
to the 'export' invocatio
Paul Burba writes:
> Hi All,
>
> One of the roadmap items yet to be started was a 'test review' to
> 'Determine which XFail and WIP tests should remain so, and which need
> to be fixed before release.'
>
> I took a look at this today. We currently have 61 tests set to XFail
> (2 of these are WIP
[ http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/trunk/notes/xfail-status ]
Paul Burba wrote on Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 21:53:34 -0500:
> Hi All,
>
> One of the roadmap items yet to be started was a 'test review' to
> 'Determine which XFail and WIP tests should remain so, and which need
> to be fixed be
Hi All,
One of the roadmap items yet to be started was a 'test review' to
'Determine which XFail and WIP tests should remain so, and which need
to be fixed before release.'
I took a look at this today. We currently have 61 tests set to XFail
(2 of these are WIPs). Here is how they break down:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Johan Corveleyn [mailto:jcor...@gmail.com]
>>> Sent: dinsdag 1 februari 2011 13:28
>>> To: Daniel Shahaf
>>> Cc: Subversion Development
>>>
On 02/01/2011 04:28 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> It looks like this triggers another abort:
>
> (gdb) r 8 --allow-segfaults
> Starting program:
> /Users/Hyrum/dev/svn-trunk3/subversion/tests/libsvn_repos/repos-test 8
> --allow-segfaults
> Reading symbols for shared libraries ...
It looks like this triggers another abort:
(gdb) r 8 --allow-segfaults
Starting program:
/Users/Hyrum/dev/svn-trunk3/subversion/tests/libsvn_repos/repos-test 8
--allow-segfaults
Reading symbols for shared libraries ... done
Assertion failed: (svn_relpath_is_canonica
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Johan Corveleyn [mailto:jcor...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: dinsdag 1 februari 2011 13:28
>> To: Daniel Shahaf
>> Cc: Subversion Development
>> Subject: Re: Assertion failure during update_tests.py 58 (XFAIL: up
On 2/1/11 11:53 AM, Blair Zajac wrote:
On 1/26/11 5:24 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
On 01/26/2011 11:39 AM, Blair Zajac wrote:
On 01/26/2011 11:15 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
Blair Zajac writes:
I'm now thinking of putting the retry in svn_io_file_lock2() instead
of handling a deadlock in libsvn_fs_f
On 1/26/11 5:24 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
On 01/26/2011 11:39 AM, Blair Zajac wrote:
On 01/26/2011 11:15 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
Blair Zajac writes:
I'm now thinking of putting the retry in svn_io_file_lock2() instead
of handling a deadlock in libsvn_fs_fs itself. It shouldn't hurt any
other us
On 02/01/2011 02:13 PM, s...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: stsp
> Date: Tue Feb 1 19:13:24 2011
> New Revision: 1066143
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1066143&view=rev
> Log:
> Follow-up to r1066087:
> * subversion/libsvn_subr/target.c
> (svn_path_condense_targets): Initialise *pcommon
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 08:14:13PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> And here, we use it:
>
> > +*pcommon = svn_uri_get_longest_ancestor(*pcommon, absolute,
> > pool);
>
> See
> http://ci.apache.org/builders/svn-slik-w2k3-x64-ra/builds/1628/steps/Test%20fsfs%2Bserf/logs/faillog
Actua
On Tue, Feb 01, 2011 at 04:42:10PM -, cmpil...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: cmpilato
> Date: Tue Feb 1 16:42:10 2011
> New Revision: 1066087
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1066087&view=rev
> Log:
> Upgrade some uses of deprecated path functions to the new
> dirent/uri/etc. interface
Done in r1066137.
-Hyrum
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> What about libsvn_ra_svn/protocol ?
>
> hwri...@apache.org wrote on Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 21:59:14 -:
>> Author: hwright
>> Date: Fri Jan 28 21:59:14 2011
>> New Revision: 1064905
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Greg Hudson wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 10:29 -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> I can only really speak for the BDB side of things, but... "what he said".
>
> I'll elaborate a little bit. API issues aside, we're used to putting
> artifacts from different versi
On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 10:29 -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> I can only really speak for the BDB side of things, but... "what he said".
I'll elaborate a little bit. API issues aside, we're used to putting
artifacts from different versions in different places. More so in FSFS,
where it was baked
On 02/01/2011 04:43 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> You do know that "diff" and "delta" are two different beasts, and that
> the diff optimizations have no effect on deltas? :)
>
> The problem with directory deltification lies in the length of the delta
> chain and the frequency of directory lookup comp
> -Original Message-
> From: Johan Corveleyn [mailto:jcor...@gmail.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 1 februari 2011 13:28
> To: Daniel Shahaf
> Cc: Subversion Development
> Subject: Re: Assertion failure during update_tests.py 58 (XFAIL: update
> a nonexistent child of a copied dir)
>
> On Mon, Jan
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Johan Corveleyn wrote on Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 02:42:11 +0100:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Already for some time now, update_tests.py 58 (XFAIL: update a
>> nonexistent child of a copied dir) crashes on my machine:
>>
>> svn: In file '..\..\..\subversion
> -Original Message-
> From: Noorul Islam K M [mailto:noo...@collab.net]
> Sent: dinsdag 1 februari 2011 12:41
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] New XFail tests for issue 3609
>
> "Bert Huijben" writes:
>
> >> -Original Message-
> >> From
"Bert Huijben" writes:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Noorul Islam K M [mailto:noo...@collab.net]
>> Sent: dinsdag 1 februari 2011 5:58
>> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] New XFail tests for issue 3609
>>
>> Noorul Islam K M writes:
>>
>> > Log
>> >
>> > [[[
>> >
> -Original Message-
> From: Noorul Islam K M [mailto:noo...@collab.net]
> Sent: dinsdag 1 februari 2011 5:58
> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] New XFail tests for issue 3609
>
> Noorul Islam K M writes:
>
> > Log
> >
> > [[[
> >
> > New XFail tests for issue 3609.
You do know that "diff" and "delta" are two different beasts, and that
the diff optimizations have no effect on deltas? :)
The problem with directory deltification lies in the length of the delta
chain and the frequency of directory lookup compared to file access. The
sad fact is that our director
29 matches
Mail list logo
