On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:56 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 09:05:25AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 1:21 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 09:05:25AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>> This code is still in trunk without any of the discussed improvements, so
>>>
On Tue, Apr 4, 2017 at 11:33 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 09:05:25AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
>> This code is still in trunk without any of the discussed improvements, so
>> this change is currently part of 1.10.0-alpha1.
>>
>> If we don't implement the
Hi,
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 04, 2017 12:19 PM
> To: Daniel Shahaf
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Check SHA vs Content (was: RE: svn commit: r1759233 -
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/
On Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 10:00:31AM +, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Note that we can still do what rep-cache now does: treat equality of
> checksums as a sensitive but not specific test for bit-for-bit equality;
> that is: checksum the file, and if the resulting value is equal to the
> stored value,
Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Apr 04, 2017 at 11:33:18 +0200:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 09:05:25AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
> > This code is still in trunk without any of the discussed improvements, so
> > this change is currently part of 1.10.0-alpha1.
> >
> > If we don't implement the
On Mon, Feb 20, 2017 at 09:05:25AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
> This code is still in trunk without any of the discussed improvements, so
> this change is currently part of 1.10.0-alpha1.
>
> If we don't implement the improvements I think we should check if we want
> to revert to the 1.0-1.9
This code is still in trunk without any of the discussed improvements, so
this change is currently part of 1.10.0-alpha1.
If we don't implement the improvements I think we should check if we want
to revert to the 1.0-1.9 behavior before we really look at releasing 1.10.
See discussion below
On 5 September 2016 at 19:23, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 5 September 2016 at 14:46, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>> -Original Message-
>>> From: i...@apache.org [mailto:i...@apache.org]
>>> Sent: maandag 5 september 2016 13:33
>>> To:
On 05.09.2016 19:09, Stefan Hett wrote:
> On 9/5/2016 6:23 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> With all above the new behavior should be working better or the same
>> in all cases. I agree that 50% approximation may be incorrect for some
>> specific binary formats (case 6) like sqlite db.
> To be fair, I'd
On 9/5/2016 6:23 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
With all above the new behavior should be working better or the same
in all cases. I agree that 50% approximation may be incorrect for some
specific binary formats (case 6) like sqlite db.
To be fair, I'd argue that in case of binary file modifications the
On 5 September 2016 at 14:46, Bert Huijben wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: i...@apache.org [mailto:i...@apache.org]
>> Sent: maandag 5 september 2016 13:33
>> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: svn commit: r1759233 -
>>
Hi,
From: Bert Huijben [mailto:b...@qqmail.nl]
> From: i...@apache.org [mailto:i...@apache.org]
> > Sent: maandag 5 september 2016 13:33
> > To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
> > Subject: svn commit: r1759233 -
> > /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c
> >
> > Author: ivan
> > Date:
> -Original Message-
> From: i...@apache.org [mailto:i...@apache.org]
> Sent: maandag 5 september 2016 13:33
> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r1759233 -
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/questions.c
>
> Author: ivan
> Date: Mon Sep 5 11:32:54 2016
> New
14 matches
Mail list logo