On Apr 27, 2010, at 01:35, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> or even simply making your remote deployment a working copy and using svn
> update there
And with this option, consider using SVN::Notify::Mirror:
http://search.cpan.org/perldoc?SVN::Notify::Mirror
On Apr 27, 2010, at 01:07, Paul Breen wrote:
> I'd like to add a new option to the export command that allows the user
> to export files only if the file size has changed
Changed since when?
I don't imagine this proposal will be accepted. I think you'll be better off
using existing solutions to
Hello,
I'd like to add a new option to the export command that allows the user
to export files only if the file size has changed--something like
svn export --skipfilesmatchingsize
The idea is to do a quick-and-easy, traffic-minimizing deployment of
files that are unlikely to remain the same siz
Thanks for all reply.
I like the subversion since it is a nice tool running both on window
and linux. I looked git and svk and it seems they are only running on
linux and I am uisng windowXP. I really hope that svk can become more
stable and mature and runs on window.
Anyway, here is reason I wan
Andy Peters wrote on Mon, 26 Apr 2010 at 15:59 -0700:
> On Apr 26, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Andy Peters wrote on Mon, 26 Apr 2010 at 11:28 -0700:
> >> ... spoke too soon. svn doesn't like an empty fsfs.conf file; it
> >> complains about missing section headers when trying to do a
On Apr 26, 2010, at 12:40 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Andy Peters wrote on Mon, 26 Apr 2010 at 11:28 -0700:
>> ... spoke too soon. svn doesn't like an empty fsfs.conf file; it
>> complains about missing section headers when trying to do an update or
>> whatever.
>>
>
> I can't reproduce this with
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Andy Peters wrote on Mon, 26 Apr 2010 at 11:28 -0700:
>> ... spoke too soon. svn doesn't like an empty fsfs.conf file; it
>> complains about missing section headers when trying to do an update or
>> whatever.
>>
>
> I can't reproduce this wit
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 16:34, Phil Pinkerton wrote:
> svn 1.6.5 while in a working copy I modified a file for testing.
> After testing I wanted to update the file I modified in the working copy to
> the version in the repository.
>
> the resulting update did not replace the files in the working
Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:34:28 -0400, /Phil Pinkerton/:
svn 1.6.5 while in a working copy I modified a file for testing.
After testing I wanted to update the file I modified in the working
copy to the version in the repository.
the resulting update did not replace the files in the working copy as
Hi Phil,
This is standard Subversion usage according to the Copy-Modify-Merge model.
Read in the SVN book for further details:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.basic.vsn-models.html#svn.basic.vsn-models.copy-merge
Bottom line, if you want to undo local changes, you need to use svn
rever
svn 1.6.5 while in a working copy I modified a file for testing.
After testing I wanted to update the file I modified in the working copy to
the version in the repository.
the resulting update did not replace the files in the working copy as
expected the modified file still remains.
the only way
On 2010-04-26 13:58, Cooke, Mark wrote:
Hi David, list,
On 2010-04-22 17:06, Cooke, Mark wrote:
I am resurrecting this thread to ask if anyone has come
forward to volunteer time and/or effort to resurrect the
windoze binaries as we are still on 1.6.6 against 1.6.11
announced a few days ago
Andy Peters wrote on Mon, 26 Apr 2010 at 11:28 -0700:
> ... spoke too soon. svn doesn't like an empty fsfs.conf file; it
> complains about missing section headers when trying to do an update or
> whatever.
>
I can't reproduce this with trunk or 1.6.x.
> I copied an example from somewhere and all
... spoke too soon. svn doesn't like an empty fsfs.conf file; it complains
about missing section headers when trying to do an update or whatever.
I copied an example from somewhere and all's well.
-a
On Apr 25, 2010, at 2:05 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 24, 2010 at 10:15:47PM -0700, Andy Peters wrote:
>> Hello, list ...
>>
>> I just updated a server from 1.6.3 to 1.6.11, running on Fedora 7. I
>> didn't do a dump and load on the repository.
>>
>> When running svnadmin hotcopy on
We have a repository with 5000+ revision and the db directory size is
about 1.2GB
After doing a blame on a file with a long history the svnserve memory
usage is going up to 850MB and stays there.
I'm not sure what happens after a long running time, bug after doing a
full checkout on a restarted p
I have svn copied a repository folder to a second location, and then
tried to reference some of the (new folder) contents at a fixed revision
in an svn:externals.
svn update does not find the revision, however, an un-revisioned
reference works.
Moving the revision reference to the copy-creation
Hi David, list,
On 2010-04-22 17:06, Cooke, Mark wrote:
I am resurrecting this thread to ask if anyone has come
forward to volunteer time and/or effort to resurrect the
windoze binaries as we are still on 1.6.6 against 1.6.11
announced a few days ago.
18 matches
Mail list logo
