Luke Perkins wrote on Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 14:39:06 -0800:
> I anticipated that there would be some naming adjustments. If someone
> has a better naming convention, I am all ears.
Don't worry about the names too much; they're the easiest thing to
change in all this. Getting the design and impleme
Mark Phippard wrote on Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 17:06:43 -0500:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Luke Perkins
> wrote:
> > I completely disagree with this statement. I have nearly 300GB of dump
> > files used as a means of backing up my repositories.
>
> OK, but aren't you moving the goal posts now
[to skimmers: grep for 'of independent interest' for a dumpstream
enhancement idea]
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:37:34 -0500:
> On 01/24/2017 12:01 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > The bug is about 1.9 using a different order to 1.8. If we make
> > svnadmin use the 1.8 unconditi
Mark and team,
Again thank you for the team’s consideration of this issue.
Statement: “That said, based on I think Julian's comment, it seemed like we
could restore the old order quite easily without breaking anything so that
seemed harmless to me and I do not see that it has a negative i
Daniel and team,
I appreciate all the consideration for this issue.
I anticipated that there would be some naming adjustments. If someone has a
better naming convention, I am all ears.
My vote is that we implement fixed order for the four keys outlined in the JIRA
issue 4668 as soon as possibl
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:20 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Another update on the new conflict resolver:
>
> We have 36 conflict resolver tests, all of which PASS.
> I have updated the wiki page about conflict tests accordingly:
> https://wiki.apache.org/subversion/TreeConflictTests
>
> The
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 4:45 PM, Luke Perkins
wrote:
> Michael,
>
> I appreciate everyone's audience on this issue. I have not felt a need to
> be directly involved in the subversion system mainly because it works so
> well. This is the first time in 10 years I have felt the need to get
> directl
Michael,
I appreciate everyone's audience on this issue. I have not felt a need to be
directly involved in the subversion system mainly because it works so well.
This is the first time in 10 years I have felt the need to get directly
involved in the SVN development team.
Statement: " As a bug
Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 19:06:13 +0100:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:52:39PM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > I wonder if we should delay the release announcement until we can link
> > to a bunch of .deb/.rpm/GUIs/* from it. This way, once we do announce@,
> > we can hope for
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:52:39PM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 18:45:37 +0100:
> > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:08:51PM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > - Asking downstreams (distros) to make alpha1 packages easily available
> > > to opting-in users
>
Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 18:45:37 +0100:
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:08:51PM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > - Asking downstreams (distros) to make alpha1 packages easily available to
> > opting-in users
>
> Yes we can do that. But this is often ineffective because distros a
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 05:08:51PM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:20:39 +0100:
> > I would like to get an 1.10.0 alpha1 released in February. Unless I hear
> > objections I will start rolling this alpha release from trunk and call a
> > vote on it soo
Luke Perkins wrote on Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 06:54:57 -0800:
> If someone can provide me a setup instructions, I can make this system
> available for testing.
>
>
>
> The resources I have available:
>
>
>
> 1.Two business class HSI routers with bandwidth to spare. These
> firewalls have D
On 01/24/2017 12:01 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> The bug is about 1.9 using a different order to 1.8. If we make
> svnadmin use the 1.8 unconditionally, then 1.9 will use a different
> order to 1.10, which essentially recreates the bug for other users.
>
> That is: the option serves to allow admins
Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 12:20:39 +0100:
> I would like to get an 1.10.0 alpha1 released in February. Unless I hear
> objections I will start rolling this alpha release from trunk and call a
> vote on it soon.
That all sounds good.
However, last time we did that we had barely
Julian Foad wrote on Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 09:51:52 +:
> Luke Perkins wrote:
> >I have defined a new switch for “svnadmin dump –pre-1.8-dump” to
> >activate the old node key order. I did my best to try to keep the
> >original authors style. Is this an acceptable switch name?
> >
> >A new paramet
Hi,
Another update on the new conflict resolver:
We have 36 conflict resolver tests, all of which PASS.
I have updated the wiki page about conflict tests accordingly:
https://wiki.apache.org/subversion/TreeConflictTests
The 36 tests we have still do not cover much of the overall problem space.
H
Hi, Luke. Thank you for bringing this to the dev list and, as I
mentioned in private, thank you for taking such a constructive and
helpful attitude to fixing the issue.
Luke Perkins wrote:
Would this be an acceptable approach to address future direction for dump while
still addressing legacy
18 matches
Mail list logo
