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 directory
-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 noo...@collab.net writes:
Log
[[[
New XFail tests for issue 3609.
Bert Huijben b...@qqmail.nl 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 noo...@collab.net writes:
Log
[[[
-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 b...@qqmail.nl writes:
-Original Message-
From:
On Mon, Jan 24, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name 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
-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 24, 2011
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 compared to
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 Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Greg Hudson ghud...@mit.edu 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
Done in r1066137.
-Hyrum
On Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name 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:
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=1066087view=rev
Log:
Upgrade some uses of deprecated path functions to the new
dirent/uri/etc. interfaces.
*
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
Actually,
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=1066143view=rev
Log:
Follow-up to r1066087:
* subversion/libsvn_subr/target.c
(svn_path_condense_targets): Initialise *pcommon in case
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 Zajacbl...@orcaware.com 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
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 Zajacbl...@orcaware.com writes:
I'm now thinking of putting the retry in svn_io_file_lock2() instead
of handling a
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Bert Huijben b...@qqmail.nl 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:
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:
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
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Johan Corveleyn jcor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Bert Huijben b...@qqmail.nl wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Johan Corveleyn [mailto:jcor...@gmail.com]
Sent: dinsdag 1 februari 2011 13:28
To: Daniel Shahaf
Cc: Subversion
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:
[ 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 before
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' invocation?
I
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
Noorul Islam K M noo...@collab.net writes:
Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name writes:
Noorul Islam K M wrote on Fri, Jan 28, 2011 at 12:27:46 +0530:
Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name writes:
Looks good, but I have a question:
Noorul Islam K M wrote on Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at
Paul Burba ptbu...@gmail.com 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
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.
I
Johan,
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 11:16 PM, Johan Corveleyn jcor...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 10:10 PM, Johan Corveleyn jcor...@gmail.com
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
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=1066276view=rev
Log:
Follow-up to 1066249: Unbreak build with thread-less APR.
* subversion/libsvn_subr/io.c
(FILE_LOCK_RETRY_LOOP): Declare
28 matches
Mail list logo
