Re: Segfault in Perl bindings when commit touches a large number of files

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:49:08PM +, Philip Martin wrote: > I also see that. Given that Perl has realloc'd some memory I suppose > it might be a reference counting bug in Subversion's XS code. > > Or perhaps the bug might be this code in svn_types.swg: > > %typemap(argout) unsigned char *re

Re: JavaHL: Exceptions in LogMessageCallback.singleMessage should abort the log immediately

On 20.03.2015 13:59, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 20.03.2015 13:34, Marc Strapetz wrote: >> On 16.03.2015 17:54, Bert Huijben wrote: >>> -Original Message- From: Marc Strapetz [mailto:marc.strap...@syntevo.com] Sent: maandag 16 maart 2015 17:30 To: dev@subversion.apache.org

Re: Handling non-reproducible test failures (was Re: 1.7.20 release candidates up for testing/signing)

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 10:30 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Johan Corveleyn > wrote: > ... > > Unfortunately, I can't verify the rev > > file, since I don't have it anymore, it has been overwritten by trying > > to reproduce it (g, should remember to backup le

Re: svn commit: r1667524 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Evgeny Kotkov wrote: > Stefan Fuhrmann writes: > > > static svn_error_t * > > -test_fsfs_config_opts(const svn_test_opts_t *opts, > > - apr_pool_t *pool) > > +test_create_with_config_opts(const svn_test_opts_t *opts, > > +

Re: 1.7.20 release candidates up for testing/signing

Summary: +1 to release Platform: Linux (Debian/jessie) 64-bit Linux (Centos 6) 64-bit (swig-pl, swig-rb) Tested: (local, svn, svn/sasl, neon, serf) x (fsfs, fsfs/pack/shard, bdb) swig-pl, swig-py, swig-rb, ctypes-python javahl x (fsfs, bdb) swig-pl and swig-rb on Centos 6 as the

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 2:44 PM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 20.03.2015 14:33, Branko Čibej wrote: > > On 20.03.2015 14:31, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Stefan Sperling >> > wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:34:00AM +0100, Branko Č

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

On 20.03.2015 16:04, Daniel Berlin wrote: > The ASF doesn't require copyright lines, AFAIK. > > To whit: httpd has *none* in the their repository. > Here's a random file: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/httpd/httpd/trunk/server/apreq_module_cgi.c?view=markup > > Copyright lines are legally meanin

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

Branko Čibej wrote: >>> Could we have a buildbot test for this kind of problem? >>> Should our rat-report bot (which I can't seem to locate in the maze >>> of buildbot right now) perhaps check for this? >> >> Yes, I think we should add a simple C test calling svn_version_extended. >> If the year di

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

On 20.03.2015 14:33, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 20.03.2015 14:31, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Stefan Sperling > > wrote: >> >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:34:00AM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote: >> > I just noticed that we forgot to bump the disp

RE: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

> -Original Message- > From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.mar...@wandisco.com] > Sent: vrijdag 20 maart 2015 14:40 > To: Branko Čibej > Cc: Subversion Development > Subject: Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools > > Stefan Sperling writes: > > > Could we have a buildbot te

Re: 1.7.20 release candidates up for testing/signing

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:09 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > The 1.7.20 release is now up for testing/signing at > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion > Please add your signatures there. > > The anticipated release day is March 31. > > Note that libsvn_subr/mergeinfo-test 6 and 10 may

Re: 1.8.13 release up for testing/signing

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > The 1.8.13 release is now up for testing/signing at > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion > Please add your signatures there. > The anticipated release day is March 31. > > Note that the 1.8.12 release was tagged and then ski

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

Stefan Sperling writes: > Could we have a buildbot test for this kind of problem? > Should our rat-report bot (which I can't seem to locate in the maze > of buildbot right now) perhaps check for this? I have modified release.py to warn when NOTICE contains a date that is not current http://svn.a

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

On 20.03.2015 14:31, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Stefan Sperling > wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:34:00AM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote: > > I just noticed that we forgot to bump the displayed copyright year. > > Fixed in r1667941

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:34:00AM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote: > > I just noticed that we forgot to bump the displayed copyright year. > > Fixed in r1667941 and nominated for backport to 1.9.x, 1.8.x and 1.7.x. > > I also vetoed the 1.7.20

Re: 1.8.13 release up for testing/signing

On 20.03.2015 08:25, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 18.03.2015 15:04, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> The 1.8.13 release is now up for testing/signing at >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion >> Please add your signatures there. >> The anticipated release day is March 31. >> >> Note that the 1.8

Re: 1.7.20 release candidates up for testing/signing

On 20.03.2015 08:25, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 18.03.2015 15:09, Stefan Sperling wrote: >> The 1.7.20 release is now up for testing/signing at >> https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion >> Please add your signatures there. >> >> The anticipated release day is March 31. >> >> Note that libs

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

On 2015-03-20 03:58:24 -0500, Greg Stein wrote: > Daniel Berlin stated many years ago that the years associated with > copyright lines are meaningless. There are lots of particular cases, depending on the country of publication, the year of publication, and so on. According to https://copyright

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

On 20.03.2015 14:08, Bert Huijben wrote: > > Just a quick check, using the tag creation dates and what is in the file: > > 1.1.3 > > 1.1.4 > > 1.4.3 > > 1.4.4 > > 1.4.5 > > 1.6.8 > > 1.6.9 > > 1.6.10 > > 1.6.11 > > 1.6.12 > > 1.6.13 > > 1.6.14 > > 1.6.15 > > 1.6.16 > > 1.6.17 > > 1.6.18 > > 1.6.19

RE: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

Just a quick check, using the tag creation dates and what is in the file: 1.1.3 1.1.4 1.4.3 1.4.4 1.4.5 1.6.8 1.6.9 1.6.10 1.6.11 1.6.12 1.6.13 1.6.14 1.6.15 1.6.16 1.6.17 1.6.18 1.6.19 1.6.20 1.6.21 1.6.22 1.6.23 1.8.6 1.8.7 1.8.8 (I probably missed a few, as I didn't auto

Re: JavaHL: Exceptions in LogMessageCallback.singleMessage should abort the log immediately

On 20.03.2015 13:34, Marc Strapetz wrote: > On 16.03.2015 17:54, Bert Huijben wrote: >> >> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: Marc Strapetz [mailto:marc.strap...@syntevo.com] >>> Sent: maandag 16 maart 2015 17:30 >>> To: dev@subversion.apache.org >>> Subject: JavaHL: Exceptions in LogMessageC

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

Branko Čibej wrote: > I just fixed that and proposed the backports ... and IMO NOTICE is an > even stronger reason not to release as-is. Surely we should apply the > same standards to our releases as that we regularly brainwash podlings > about. We should apply the same standards, yes. Is this iss

Re: JavaHL: Exceptions in LogMessageCallback.singleMessage should abort the log immediately

On 16.03.2015 17:54, Bert Huijben wrote: -Original Message- From: Marc Strapetz [mailto:marc.strap...@syntevo.com] Sent: maandag 16 maart 2015 17:30 To: dev@subversion.apache.org Subject: JavaHL: Exceptions in LogMessageCallback.singleMessage should abort the log immediately If e.g. a

Re: 1.7.20 release candidates up for testing/signing

Philip Martin writes: > The Perl bindings do not build on my Debian/testing box. Patching the generated code allows the bindings to build and the tests to work. We should consider bumping the swig version used by 1.7, perhaps to 2.0.9 as used by 1.8. I've not explicitly tested 1.7 with 2.0.9 b

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

On 20.03.2015 11:07, Greg Stein wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Branko Čibej > wrote: > >... > > IMO, we should either not display the year (which IIUC would > violate ASF policy), or we should display the correct year. > Anything else makes us look

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

Let me expand on that a bit ... let's not hold any releases for this, but let's talk to Danny and other peeps at the ASF. I believe we can clear out a few lines. Pointing to subversion.a.o is nice. We should be able to scorch the other 3 lines. On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:43 AM, Greg Stein wrote:

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

hehe... I think it is time to kill that off, with extreme prejudice :-D On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 5:35 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 20.03.2015 11:07, Greg Stein wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Branko Čibej > > wrote: > > >... > > > > IMO, we should eithe

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

On 20.03.2015 11:07, Greg Stein wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Branko Čibej > wrote: > >... > > IMO, we should either not display the year (which IIUC would > violate ASF policy), or we should display the correct year. > Anything else makes us look

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: >... > IMO, we should either not display the year (which IIUC would violate ASF > policy), or we should display the correct year. Anything else makes us look > silly. > Hmm? Policy is at: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html And th

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:28 AM, Branko Čibej wrote: >... > IMO, we should either not display the year (which IIUC would violate ASF > policy), or we should display the correct year. Anything else makes us look > silly. > Hmm? Policy is at: http://www.apache.org/legal/src-headers.html And th

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

On 20.03.2015 10:28, Branko Čibej wrote: > On 20.03.2015 09:58, Greg Stein wrote: >> Daniel Berlin stated many years ago that the years associated with >> copyright lines are meaningless. There is no reason to burn/re-roll >> just for that. >> >> The simple fact is that if you end up in court, then

Handling non-reproducible test failures (was Re: 1.7.20 release candidates up for testing/signing)

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote: ... > Unfortunately, I can't verify the rev > file, since I don't have it anymore, it has been overwritten by trying > to reproduce it (g, should remember to backup leftover > repositories and working copies after a failed test run, befor

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

On 20.03.2015 09:58, Greg Stein wrote: > Daniel Berlin stated many years ago that the years associated with > copyright lines are meaningless. There is no reason to burn/re-roll > just for that. > > The simple fact is that if you end up in court, then what is printed > to the console has ZERO beari

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

Daniel Berlin stated many years ago that the years associated with copyright lines are meaningless. There is no reason to burn/re-roll just for that. The simple fact is that if you end up in court, then what is printed to the console has ZERO bearing (or what year is listed in a source file). The

Re: 1.7.20 release candidates up for testing/signing

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 7:42 PM, Philip Martin wrote: > Johan Corveleyn writes: > >> >> svn: E160004: Corrupt node-revision '0.0.r9/882' >> svn: E160004: Missing id field in node-rev > > I don't see that on my Linux box. That's a complaint about the root > node of r9, near the end of the file d

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

On 20.03.2015 08:47, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:34:00AM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote: >> I just noticed that we forgot to bump the displayed copyright year. >> Fixed in r1667941 and nominated for backport to 1.9.x, 1.8.x and 1.7.x. >> I also vetoed the 1.7.20 and 1.8.13 releas

Re: Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 08:34:00AM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote: > I just noticed that we forgot to bump the displayed copyright year. > Fixed in r1667941 and nominated for backport to 1.9.x, 1.8.x and 1.7.x. > I also vetoed the 1.7.20 and 1.8.13 releases because of the wrong year > ... we really shou

Copyright year displayed by command-line tools

I just noticed that we forgot to bump the displayed copyright year. Fixed in r1667941 and nominated for backport to 1.9.x, 1.8.x and 1.7.x. I also vetoed the 1.7.20 and 1.8.13 releases because of the wrong year ... we really shouldn't release with wrong legalese, and we already allowed 1.9.0-beta1

Re: 1.8.13 release up for testing/signing

On 18.03.2015 15:04, Stefan Sperling wrote: > The 1.8.13 release is now up for testing/signing at > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion > Please add your signatures there. > The anticipated release day is March 31. > > Note that the 1.8.12 release was tagged and then skipped because o

Re: 1.7.20 release candidates up for testing/signing

On 18.03.2015 15:09, Stefan Sperling wrote: > The 1.7.20 release is now up for testing/signing at > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion > Please add your signatures there. > > The anticipated release day is March 31. > > Note that libsvn_subr/mergeinfo-test 6 and 10 may have occasiona

Re: 1.7.20 release candidates up for testing/signing

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 07:40:41PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote: > Wait, did I say "reproducible"? Gah, I had it once, then reproduced it > shortly after (it's still in my scrollback history), then sent this > mail, and now I can't reproduce it anymore :-(. I've tried at least 20 > more times ... T