On 4/21/15 1:09 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> The 1.9.0-rc1 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.
>
> This being a rc1 it means that our soak period for 1.9.0 has begun
Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:30:39 +0100:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote (quoting two emails combined):
> > Okay. So what you're saying so far is that the data model will have
> > distinct concepts for "copying" and "branching".
>
> Yup.
>
> > Presumably [...] some high-level operations
>
On 30.04.2015 15:57, Ben Reser wrote:
> On 4/28/15 11:25 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> Subject says it all. Two reasons:
>>
>> * Java 5 has been officially dead since 2009
>> * 1.9 JavaHL uses Java6 APIs
>>
>> It's possible to cross-compile for Java5 using newer JDKs, but the
>> compiler only chec
On 4/28/15 11:25 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Subject says it all. Two reasons:
>
> * Java 5 has been officially dead since 2009
> * 1.9 JavaHL uses Java6 APIs
>
> It's possible to cross-compile for Java5 using newer JDKs, but the
> compiler only checks language features, not library usage; for
Branko Čibej writes:
> Not really. Once an exception is thrown, we'll return from the loop and
> the containing function will detect the exception, pop the local frame
> that it created (thus removing any remaining references within that
> frame) and return.
I see, the bare return is not in fill
On 30.04.2015 14:17, Philip Martin wrote:
> Branko Čibej writes:
>
>> The more important part of this change was the addition of
>> POP_AND_RETURN_NOTHING at the end of the function (that you don't
>> quote), because that actually destroys ("pops") the current local JNI
>> frame and cleans up any
Branko Čibej writes:
> The more important part of this change was the addition of
> POP_AND_RETURN_NOTHING at the end of the function (that you don't
> quote), because that actually destroys ("pops") the current local JNI
> frame and cleans up any remaining local references within it. We were
> l
Daniel Shahaf wrote (quoting two emails combined):
> Okay. So what you're saying so far is that the data model will have
> distinct concepts for "copying" and "branching".
Yup.
> Presumably [...] some high-level operations
> will behave differently if the object operated upon is a branch compare
Ping! I just noticed this thread had gone quiet. Anybody want to add
anything to the discussion, or file an issue or write a test for it?
- Julian
On 30 March 2015 at 19:32, Stefan Kueng wrote:
> On 29.03.2015 17:50, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: Stephen White [ma
9 matches
Mail list logo
