Branko Čibej wrote:
> You've changed my mind: +1
OK, thanks for the review.
Committed, with a test: http://svn.apache.org/r1837151
--
- Julian
On 31.07.2018 15:14, Julian Foad wrote:
> Before r871212 there was no validation of svn:date value entering the repo, I
> think, so old-format dates could have been put in.
Right. That's the edge-case I was thinking about.
> But if anyone put old-format dates into their repo, and even if users d
Branko Čibej wrote on 2018-07-31:
> On 31.07.2018 13:04, Julian Foad wrote:
> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4767
> >
> > Running tests with the '--dump-load-cross-check' option revealed a minor
> > discrepancy between the dump files produced by 'svnadmin dump' and
> > 'svnrdump dump
Branko Čibej wrote on Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 13:43:57 +0200:
> On 31.07.2018 13:04, Julian Foad wrote:
> > However, this does not only convert old to new format, but could also make
> > textual changes to the string if the revprop value is not already
> > canonical. Dump should carefully output exa
On 31.07.2018 13:04, Julian Foad wrote:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4767
>
> Running tests with the '--dump-load-cross-check' option revealed a minor
> discrepancy between the dump files produced by 'svnadmin dump' and 'svnrdump
> dump' in some test cases.
>
> [...]
> K
> svn:da
Julian Foad wrote on Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 12:04:23 +0100:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4767
>
> Running tests with the '--dump-load-cross-check' option revealed a minor
> discrepancy between the dump files produced by 'svnadmin dump' and 'svnrdump
> dump' in some test cases.
>
>
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4767
Running tests with the '--dump-load-cross-check' option revealed a minor
discrepancy between the dump files produced by 'svnadmin dump' and 'svnrdump
dump' in some test cases.
[...]
K
svn:date
V
- 2015-01-01T00:00:00.00Z
+ 2015-01-01T00:00:0
7 matches
Mail list logo
