On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 9:09 PM, jcor...@apache.org wrote:
>...
>> +
>> +For 1.8 servers, set SVNAllowBulkUpdates to
>> +Prefer if your server configuration does not allow an
>> +intermediate caching server - on your side or on the client's side
On 06/19/2013 09:45 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> The checks that protect the user from accidentally merging unrelated
> branches (also used for the mergeinfo command IIRC): are these new in
> 1.8? Are these mentioned somewhere in the release notes? I can't seem
> to find anything about this.
This
The checks that protect the user from accidentally merging unrelated
branches (also used for the mergeinfo command IIRC): are these new in
1.8? Are these mentioned somewhere in the release notes? I can't seem
to find anything about this.
--
Johan
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:27 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> On Jun 19, 2013, at 9:09 PM, jcor...@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>> Author: jcorvel
>>> Date: Thu Jun 20 01:09:20 2013
>>> New Revision: 1494829
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1494829
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 3:23 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Jun 19, 2013, at 9:09 PM, jcor...@apache.org wrote:
>
>> Author: jcorvel
>> Date: Thu Jun 20 01:09:20 2013
>> New Revision: 1494829
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1494829
>> Log:
>> Add information about serf skelta mode and the configu
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Attached a patch to the site branch that tries to explain
> SVNAllowBulkUpdates and http-bulk-updates in the 1.8 release notes.
>
> Anyone care to review and fix where needed? I'm not a lot at my pc
> tonight and tomorrow so feel f
On Jun 19, 2013, at 9:09 PM, jcor...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: jcorvel
> Date: Thu Jun 20 01:09:20 2013
> New Revision: 1494829
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1494829
> Log:
> Add information about serf skelta mode and the configuration knobs involved
> to the 1.8 release notes.
>
> Patch by:
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Ruben Stein wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Wiki (Linked via 1.8 release notes) documents the syntax of
> svn:global-ignores as being "A whitespace-delimited collection of file
> patterns". I just tried this out and had no success. However, using newline
> as delimiter works
Is this caused by the delayed open streams?
I don’t think this scenario was possible in 1.7.
Bert
Sent from Windows Mail
From: Stefan Küng
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 9:55 PM
To: Subversion Development
Hi,
After the release of 1.8, the crash reports for TortoiseSVN are al
Hi,
Attached a patch to the site branch that tries to explain
SVNAllowBulkUpdates and http-bulk-updates in the 1.8 release notes.
Anyone care to review and fix where needed? I'm not a lot at my pc
tonight and tomorrow so feel free to commit directly.
regards,
Lieven
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3
Hi,
After the release of 1.8, the crash reports for TortoiseSVN are already
coming in.
Number one crash is during an update.
In libsvn_wc/update_editor.c, window_handler(), line 1012:
if (err)
{
/* We failed to apply the delta; clean up the temporary file. */
svn_error_clear(sv
On Jun 19, 2013, at 12:08 , Philip Martin wrote:
> Philip Martin writes:
>
>> Ben Reser writes:
>>
>>> I don't imagine it'd take very long at all to implement but the
>>> problem of course is that we really should think carefully how we go
>>> about doing this. If we can detect this at runtim
Relaying the ping to Lieven :-), as he said here that he was working
on a text for the release notes:
http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2013-06/0290.shtml
--
Johan
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> Ping!
>
> - Julian
>
>
> Johan Corveleyn wrote on 2013-06-12:
>
>> Before I forg
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 5:04 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 03:50:01PM +0400, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:40 PM, wrote:
>> > Author: stsp
>> > Date: Fri Jun 14 14:40:17 2013
>> > New Revision: 1493097
>> >
>> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1493097
>> > Lo
Ping!
- Julian
Johan Corveleyn wrote on 2013-06-12:
> Before I forget, I just noticed that there is no mention anywhere in
> the release notes about the http-bulk-updates or the corresponding
> server side options. I think it's important to at least mention them,
> and hopefully give some recom
stef...@apache.org writes:
> Author: stefan2
> Date: Tue Jun 18 20:59:07 2013
> New Revision: 1494298
> static svn_error_t *
> @@ -1501,6 +1507,29 @@ upgrade_pack_revprops(svn_fs_t *fs,
>svn_pool_clear(iterpool);
> }
Is there any reason for upgrade_pack_revprops and
upgrade_cleanup
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 08:31:18AM -0400, Mark Phippard wrote:
> Rushing around is rarely a good idea and doing a release will only
> detract from the resources we need to be investigating and fixing the
> early problems coming in. I would prefer to see us do a normal 1.8.1
> release roughly 10-14
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > Given the number of reports on users@, I think we have to get a 1.8.1
> > with /only/ the 'svnadmin upgrade' crash fix out ASAP.
>
-1. AFAIK, no data is being compromised and there i
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 03:50:01PM +0400, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:40 PM, wrote:
> > Author: stsp
> > Date: Fri Jun 14 14:40:17 2013
> > New Revision: 1493097
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1493097
> > Log:
> > Run tests with an exclusive lock on working copies. This sh
On 06/19/2013 04:28 AM, Morten Due Jorgensen wrote:
> I just downloaded the subversion 1.8.0 source, and built it for Windows
I never really finished reading this guy's mail to users@ ... couldn't get
past the part where he successfully built Subversion of Windows. Seems it
*is* possible after al
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 5:00 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Given the number of reports on users@, I think we have to get a 1.8.1
> with /only/ the 'svnadmin upgrade' crash fix out ASAP.
I am -0 on this plan.
This is an embarrassing problem and we have gotten several quick
reports, but it also is not
> -Original Message-
> From: Ivan Zhakov [mailto:i...@visualsvn.com]
> Sent: woensdag 19 juni 2013 13:50
> To: dev@subversion.apache.org; Stefan Sperling
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1493097 -
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/svntest/main.py
>
> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:40 PM
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 6:40 PM, wrote:
> Author: stsp
> Date: Fri Jun 14 14:40:17 2013
> New Revision: 1493097
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1493097
> Log:
> Run tests with an exclusive lock on working copies. This should reduce test
> run time and also ensures that exclusive locking mode is t
Branko Čibej wrote on Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:06:45 +0200:
> On 19.06.2013 11:00, Branko Čibej wrote:
> > Given the number of reports on users@, I think we have to get a 1.8.1
> > with /only/ the 'svnadmin upgrade' crash fix out ASAP.
>
> (a.k.a I can try to botch the RM if there's agreement on th
Joe Orton wrote on Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 10:15:57 +0100:
> We've seen a few cases where the test suite for the ruby bindings fails
> spuriously. There are two (separate) issues:
>
> a) there is a race between svnserve failing in bind() because the chosen
> port is already in use, and the test su
Bert Huijben wrote on Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:25:29 +0200:
> This would be much easier to reproduce if we could 'svnadmin upgrade' to
> specific newer formats instead of only directly to the latest version.
>
Yes.
> I have no idea how hard it would be to implement this (and it certainly
> can't
Philip Martin writes:
> Ben Reser writes:
>
>> I don't imagine it'd take very long at all to implement but the
>> problem of course is that we really should think carefully how we go
>> about doing this. If we can detect this at runtime we probably
>> should.
>
> I don't see how Subversion can
This would be much easier to reproduce if we could 'svnadmin upgrade' to
specific newer formats instead of only directly to the latest version.
I have no idea how hard it would be to implement this (and it certainly
can't be backported to 1.8), but at least it would allow more testing for
futur
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 06:32:13PM +0200, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> This 204 response is not a problem, there's a special case for
> Content-Length == 0 && code == 204 in serf (response_buckets.c).
Looking at the serf (1.2.1) code, that logic isn't right, you need to
follow the precedence in the R
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Given the number of reports on users@, I think we have to get a 1.8.1
> with /only/ the 'svnadmin upgrade' crash fix out ASAP.
>
> -- Brane
>
+1, but before releasing 1.8.1 we need to make sure that fix is
correct and we doesn't have similar i
We've seen a few cases where the test suite for the ruby bindings fails
spuriously. There are two (separate) issues:
a) there is a race between svnserve failing in bind() because the chosen
port is already in use, and the test suite checking that the forked
svnserve process is still running.
On 19.06.2013 11:00, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Given the number of reports on users@, I think we have to get a 1.8.1
> with /only/ the 'svnadmin upgrade' crash fix out ASAP.
(a.k.a I can try to botch the RM if there's agreement on this.)
--
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop
Given the number of reports on users@, I think we have to get a 1.8.1
with /only/ the 'svnadmin upgrade' crash fix out ASAP.
-- Brane
--
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
e. br...@wandisco.com
Michael Schlottke writes:
> However, for now I'd prefer a quick-n-dirty solution rather than not
> being able to upgrade at all. I know this is asking for quite
> something, especially since I don't know how to do it myself :-/
Here's my really quick-n-dirty patch used during investigation. It'
On Jun 19, 2013, at 09:56 , Ben Reser wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Michael Schlottke
> wrote:
>> Do you have an idea of how hard this is to achieve, or how long it would
>> take to create a patch? I'd be happy to volunteer as a tester…
>> Or do you know of an interim hack that I cou
Ben Reser writes:
> I don't imagine it'd take very long at all to implement but the
> problem of course is that we really should think carefully how we go
> about doing this. If we can detect this at runtime we probably
> should.
I don't see how Subversion can determine that one script needs a
[Ben Reser]
> Actually now that I think about it a bit more I'm not sure that
> helps. It'll probably just shift it to a link time error because the
> defines will be there so it'll build, SWIG will generate wrappers for
> them that depend on the functions in our libraries, which won't be
> avail
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:11 AM, Michael Schlottke
wrote:
> Do you have an idea of how hard this is to achieve, or how long it would
> take to create a patch? I'd be happy to volunteer as a tester…
> Or do you know of an interim hack that I could use until it is properly
> fixed?
I don't imagine
On Jun 19, 2013, at 01:58 , Philip Martin wrote:
> [cc to dev]
>
> Michael Schlottke writes:
>
>> I just installed svn 1.8 on our cluster. Before, we used svn 1.7.9 and
>> a little vimdiff wrapper (taken, with a few changes, from
>> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.advanced.externald
39 matches
Mail list logo
