Hi,
It seems that svn doesn't handle reparse points properly in all
situations. Which causes big problems for TSVN when a working copy is on
a Onedrive folder.
See here for more details:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/tortoisesvn/hlQj5OifhBg/RX_cw_sQCgAJ
While in this particular situation,
On 5/18/2018 4:27 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
Stefan Sperling wrote on 2018-05-18:
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:54:03PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
LTS release:
* full backports for at least 2 years, and at least until the next LTS
release
* security/corruption fixes for at least 4 years, and at
Stefan Sperling wrote on 2018-05-18:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:54:03PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> > LTS release:
> > * full backports for at least 2 years, and at least until the next LTS
> > release
> > * security/corruption fixes for at least 4 years, and at least until the
> > next-but
Julian Foad wrote on Fri, 18 May 2018 14:54 +0100:
> standard release:
> * full backports at least until the next standard release
> * security/corruption fixes at least until the next-but-one standard release
Nitpick, but: s/until the next standard release/until the next release/
(whether the
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:54:03PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:29:25PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> > > Branch for stabilization 4 months after the last release (which was in
> > > 2018-04), so:
> > >
> > > * Branch in 2018-08
> > > * Aim t
Thomas Singer wrote on 2018-05-18:
> Is it planned to add support for shelve & checkpoint for the JavaHL
> interface, too?
(CC: dev@)
It is not planned, but it would be a good thing to do. Could you help?
I also would like to add support to the SWIG bindings. I started trying, but I
need help
We are using OS X 10.7.5 for building SVN binaries. This seems to work
with Java 1.8.
--
Best regards,
Thomas Singer
=
syntevo GmbH
https://www.syntevo.com
https://www.syntevo.com/blog
On 2018-05-18 9:46, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:40:35AM +0200, Thomas Sing
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:29:25PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Branch for stabilization 4 months after the last release (which was in
> > 2018-04), so:
> >
> > * Branch in 2018-08
> > * Aim to release in 2018-10
>
> Wouldn't we also have to adjust our backporting g
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:29:25PM +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> Branch for stabilization 4 months after the last release (which was in
> 2018-04), so:
>
> * Branch in 2018-08
> * Aim to release in 2018-10
Wouldn't we also have to adjust our backporting guidelines if we
did this? Would 1.10 on
Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> I think we need to aim for a much sooner 1.11 release. And I'd like us
> to agree on some intended planning / timing. I know it's easy to talk
> about it, and much more difficult to actually *do it*. But first
> things first, what are our intentions?
Yes, let's agree a pla
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 9:46 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
[ snip discussion about bumping the minimum JDK requirements ... (was
Re: JDK 10 removal of javah)]
> ... when
> Subversion 1.11 will be released in probably 2 to 3 years from now?
I think we need to aim for a much sooner 1.11 release. And
On 18.05.2018 14:40, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:36:06PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 18.05.2018 14:34, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:22:46AM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:46:41AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> Els
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 02:36:06PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 18.05.2018 14:34, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:22:46AM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
> >> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:46:41AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >>> Elsewhere in this discussion thread it was suggest
On 18.05.2018 14:34, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:22:46AM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
>> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:46:41AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> Elsewhere in this discussion thread it was suggested to raise the
>>> minimum JDK version requirement to Java 1.8.
>>> Y
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:22:46AM -0400, James McCoy wrote:
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:46:41AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > Elsewhere in this discussion thread it was suggested to raise the
> > minimum JDK version requirement to Java 1.8.
> > Your statement "please keep backward compatibili
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 09:46:41AM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> Elsewhere in this discussion thread it was suggested to raise the
> minimum JDK version requirement to Java 1.8.
> Your statement "please keep backward compatibility with older JDKs"
> could mean anything between "please leave every
On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 08:40:35AM +0200, Thomas Singer wrote:
> Whatever you do, please keep backward compatibility with older JDKs. Reason
> is building on older OS X machines for most compatibility which do not allow
> latest JDKs.
>
> Thanks for considering.
Could you be more specific about w
On Tue, May 08, 2018 at 12:31:55PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 08.05.2018 12:19, Joe Orton wrote:
> > [[[
> > * subversion/tests/cmdline/svntest/main.py
> > (open_pipe): Run Python tests under the same Python executable for
> > all platforms rather than just Win32 (rather than finding one f
18 matches
Mail list logo
