Hi,
On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 8:21 PM, Stefan Küng wrote:
> On 04.06.2013 13:56, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
>
>> You are referring to a configuration where OpenSSL uses MS's CryptoAPI
>> to use the Windows certificate store. Never used it myself, but I see
>> that TSVN has implemented this, with an ext
Hi, Stefan,
Von: Stefan Küng [mailto:tortoise...@gmail.com]
> On 04.06.2013 13:56, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> > You are referring to a configuration where OpenSSL uses MS's CryptoAPI
> > to use the Windows certificate store. Never used it myself, but I see
> > that TSVN has implemented this, with an
Philip Martin writes:
> I'm trying to work out what this code should look like. This function
> is called after LOCK and PROPFIND, but not UNLOCK which has its own
> code. I think the function should be something like:
>
> apr_status_t errcode;
>
> if (err)
> return err;
>
> if (handl
On 03.06.2013 01:29, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
[...]
When I look at the actual 'svn log' of this working copy (or the
repository), it gets even stranger: the commit for revision 2 is
missing:
[...]
Can anyone explain this? Any ideas?
Can it be a timestamp issue? sleep_for_timestamp ... which rem
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:24 PM, wrote:
> Author: stefan2
> Date: Wed Jun 5 11:24:10 2013
> New Revision: 1489814
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1489814
> Log:
> On the fsfs-format7 branch: remove an used variable.
Cool. And it still compiles? ;-)
--
Johan
Johan Corveleyn writes:
>
> r2 | jrandom | 2013-06-03 00:23:00 +0200 (Mon, 03 Jun 2013) | 1 line
>
> Log message for revision 3
>
> r1 | jrandom | 2013
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:50 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 8:02 AM, wrote:
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1488183
>>>
>>> --- subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c (original)
>>> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c Fri May 31
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 1:24 PM, wrote:
> > Author: stefan2
> > Date: Wed Jun 5 11:24:10 2013
> > New Revision: 1489814
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1489814
> > Log:
> > On the fsfs-format7 branch: remove an used variable.
>
> Cool
On 05.06.2013 09:11, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
First, you have to compile OpenSSL with CAPI enabled. The default build
does not use this.
There are two build flags for the CAPI engine in OpenSSL. The first one
simply activates the engine, but it only works if the smartcard has only
one certificate
On 05.06.2013 09:25, Markus Schaber wrote:
Hi, Stefan,
Von: Stefan Küng [mailto:tortoise...@gmail.com]
On 04.06.2013 13:56, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
You are referring to a configuration where OpenSSL uses MS's CryptoAPI
to use the Windows certificate store. Never used it myself, but I see
that T
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> or even better,
>>
>> application/vnd.apache.vc-notify+json
>>
>> as the format of the notifications does not in fact imply any kind of
>> publish/subscribe architecture. You could crea
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> or even better,
>>>
>>> application/vnd.apache.vc-notify+json
>>>
>>> as the format of the notifications does not in fact imply an
On Jun 5, 2013 6:21 PM, "Ben Reser" wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 11:11 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 12:21 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >> On Sun, Jun 2, 2013 at 4:34 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >>> or even better,
> >>>
> >>> application/vnd.apache.vc-notify+json
> >>>
> >>
Hey all,
I've got a question where I'm not quite sure what the answer "should"
be. While I wrote the rules on versioning components, it never talked
about cross-component and dependency versioning. For Subversion, we
said "all svn components should be at the same version".
But dependencies.
With
+1 for "no big deal" too, I think.
Depending upon how far we take serf 2.0 and its APIs, a new libsvn_ra_serf2
library may be in order. So, it'd be no different than all of the
libsvn_fs* and libsvn_wc internal changes.
If we altered the RA APIs, then that would be a no-no if we did it in a
back
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 12:50 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Within serf, we're thinking about new models for connection and
> protocol handling. And bumping to 2.0 to make that happen. What is the
> effect upon libsvn_ra_serf and svn in general?
>
> My thinking is "no big deal". That upgrading to svn 1.9
On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Johan Corveleyn writes:
...
>> But even if the timestamp after the edit is precisely the same as
>> after the checkout, I don't understand how that can lead to 'commit'
>> not seeing that the file is modified: the edit changed the filesize,
>
17 matches
Mail list logo
