Hi all,
As reported in Debian[0], using git-svn to clone a Subversion repo will
reliably crash in Subversion's Perl bindings if there are commits
touching many files.
[0]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=780246
The original report referenced a private repo, but it was reproduce
On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 3:00 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:09 AM, Ben Reser wrote:
>> The 1.9.0-beta1 release artifacts are now available for testing/signing.
>> Please get the tarballs from
>> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
>> and add your signatures
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:15 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> On 13 March 2015, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> Dear fans of move tracking,
>>>
>>> I heartily invite you to help by playing with 'svnmover'. Can you have
>>> a go and see what it can do? It'
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 4:17 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> On 13 March 2015, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Dear fans of move tracking,
>>
>> I heartily invite you to help by playing with 'svnmover'. Can you have
>> a go and see what it can do? It's quite fun to play with (in a nerdy
>> way :-)
>
> One unimplem
On 17.03.2015 22:53, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:11:28PM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: s...@apache.org [mailto:s...@apache.org]
>>> Sent: dinsdag 17 maart 2015 13:05
>>> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
>>> Subject: svn commit: r1667
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:11:28PM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: s...@apache.org [mailto:s...@apache.org]
> > Sent: dinsdag 17 maart 2015 13:05
> > To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
> > Subject: svn commit: r1667280 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion:
> >
> -Original Message-
> From: s...@apache.org [mailto:s...@apache.org]
> Sent: dinsdag 17 maart 2015 13:05
> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r1667280 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion:
> libsvn_wc/merge.c tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py
>
> Author: stsp
> Date: Tue M
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> To me this algorithm seems better.
Oops.
My argument for wanting something 'better' than the current trunk
implementation (which flushes after 4, 16, 64, 256 log entries) has
been blown out of the water. My argument depended on an assumption
that the rate of discovery of
On 3/5/15 4:09 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> The 1.9.0-beta1 release artifacts are now available for testing/signing.
> Please get the tarballs from
> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
> and add your signatures there.
>
> Please keep in mind that this is a beta and that it's going to ta
On 13 March 2015, Julian Foad wrote:
> Dear fans of move tracking,
>
> I heartily invite you to help by playing with 'svnmover'. Can you have
> a go and see what it can do? It's quite fun to play with (in a nerdy
> way :-)
One unimplemented bit you might come across is 'svnmover merge'
doesn't try
On 17.03.2015 15:06, Julian Foad wrote:
> I (Julian Foad) wrote:
>> * uniformity of the difference from branch1@r1 to branch2@r2
>> for any values of: branch1, r1, branch2, r2
>> where branch1 and branch2 are 'related' (formally: in the same branch
>> family)
> Branko Čibej wrote:
>> The
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> * uniformity of the difference from branch1@r1 to branch2@r2
> for any values of: branch1, r1, branch2, r2
> where branch1 and branch2 are 'related' (formally: in the same branch
> family)
Branko Čibej wrote:
> The pure-difference is called 'svn_repos_replay'. [
On 17.03.2015 14:41, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 17 March 2015 at 16:08, wrote:
>> Author: brane
>> Date: Tue Mar 17 13:08:24 2015
>> New Revision: 1667295
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1667295
>> Log:
>> * branches/1.8.x/STATUS:
>>- Vote for the r1660220 and r1619380 groups, and r190.
>>
On 17 March 2015 at 16:08, wrote:
> Author: brane
> Date: Tue Mar 17 13:08:24 2015
> New Revision: 1667295
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1667295
> Log:
> * branches/1.8.x/STATUS:
>- Vote for the r1660220 and r1619380 groups, and r190.
>- Approve r1660071, r1532287, r1660593, r166064
On 17.03.2015 13:28, Marc Strapetz wrote:
> We are currently faced with the decision whether to release a new
> "major" version of SmartSVN which is compatible with Subversion 8 or
> wait for Subversion 9 release. The two main factors driving this
> decision are:
>
> (i) whether Subversion 1.9 will
On 17.03.2015 13:28, Marc Strapetz wrote:
We are currently faced with the decision whether to release a new
"major" version of SmartSVN which is compatible with Subversion 8 or
wait for Subversion 9 release. The two main factors driving this
decision are:
(i) whether Subversion 1.9 will be able
We are currently faced with the decision whether to release a new
"major" version of SmartSVN which is compatible with Subversion 8 or
wait for Subversion 9 release. The two main factors driving this
decision are:
(i) whether Subversion 1.9 will be able to access Subversion 1.8 working
copies
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> Thanks for the review, Julian! Uncovered a bug and
> fixed all the things you found:
Thanks.
I've proposed r1665894 and r1667101 for backport to 1.9.x.
I'm not quite sure of the severity of the bug, or what real-world
problem it may have caused, if any, so I haven't writ
Philip Martin wrote:
> "Bert Huijben" writes:
>> BTW 500 msec is about two or three the time you expect for google page of
>> results Why this arbritrary number?
>
> How do you explain the 2 and 2048 in the current code? They are all
> just arbitrary numbers. Make it 100ms instead of 500ms.
19 matches
Mail list logo
