Hello everyone,
I had a RAID 5 storage, and I used to have a SVN server on this.
Unfortunately the RAID layout failed. I succeeded to the data from my
server including the folder where I created the SVN repositories.
Now that I have the files from repositories, what is the correct plan
for
Am 18.03.2012 14:49, schrieb Alin ILIE:
I had a RAID 5 storage, and I used to have a SVN server on this.
Unfortunately the RAID layout failed. I succeeded to the data from my
server including the folder where I created the SVN repositories.
Now that I have the files from repositories, what is
The backup transfer to a different machine did not worked, and I didn't
notice this. :(
Got it !
1) Install SVN on a new linux server
2) Configure SVN
3) Place the files recovered in the place where I defined repositories
home in the step 2
4) If I will change the server URL, I have to run svn
Daniel Shahaf danie...@elego.de writes:
From what is there so far, yes. We do have different operations
occurring at the same time, but for these ones, I see MERGE and DELETE
verbs overlapping in the same or near time intervals according to the
Apache logs. I just did a quick look in the
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 3:59 AM, Alin ILIE alin.i...@yellowgnu.net wrote:
The backup transfer to a different machine did not worked, and I didn't
notice this. :(
Got it !
1) Install SVN on a new linux server
2) Configure SVN
3) Place the files recovered in the place where I defined
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 16:28:21 +0200:
[ cc += dev@. summary for dev@: investigating issue #4129: predecessor
count of rN is not incremented by one wrt that of r(N-1); see
http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4129 ]
Okay, count me happy :-) I can reproduce
Hi, Giorgio,
Maybe svndumpfilter can help:
http://svnbook.spears.at/nightly/de/svn.reposadmin.maint.html#svn.reposadmin.maint.tk.svndumpfilter
http://svnbook.spears.at/nightly/de/svn.reposadmin.maint.html#svn.reposadmin.maint.filtering
Best regards
Markus Schaber
--
We have been working for a long time (almost a year) on two products in
paralell. One is a maintenance product, i.e. general bug fixes and very little
new features, called base and is effectively trunk. The other is a new and
improved with all the latest bells and whistles, and is handled in
Daniel Shahaf danie...@elego.de writes:
The bug reproduced with either ServerLimit 1 or ThreadLimit 1 in
httpd.conf. (That forced both commits to be served by the same process
(resp., by different processes).) I use httpd 2.4.1 with event MPM.
I can reproduce ove ra_local:
svnadmin create
shashank subramaniam wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 20:29:47 +0530:
Hey,
We tried looping as a solution to the ''Predescessor
Count for the root node revision is wrong' error (We looped the commit
alone till it is commited).This works, but if 100 people try to commit to
I ran into an unexpected behavior with svn:ignore today and wanted to see
if someone can verify whether this is a bug (in the current version) or
just an aspect of how Subversion works. We're still on 1.6x.
Given a tree with
trunk
+ cache
+ htdocs
+ logs
+ system
I have tried
On 19/03/12 16:26, Geoff Hoffman wrote:
I ran into an unexpected behavior with svn:ignore today and wanted to
see if someone can verify whether this is a bug (in the current
version) or just an aspect of how Subversion works. We're still on 1.6x.
Given a tree with
trunk
+ cache
+
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 03:26:37PM +, Tennebø Frode wrote:
We have been working for a long time (almost a year) on two products in
paralell. One is a maintenance product, i.e. general bug fixes and very
little new features, called base and is effectively trunk. The other is a
new and
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:26, Geoff Hoffman ghoff...@cardinalpath.com wrote:
I ran into an unexpected behavior with svn:ignore today and wanted to see if
someone can verify whether this is a bug (in the current version) or just an
aspect of how Subversion works. We're still on 1.6x.
Given a
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Geoff Hoffman
ghoff...@cardinalpath.com wrote:
I ran into an unexpected behavior with svn:ignore today and wanted to see if
someone can verify whether this is a bug (in the current version) or just an
aspect of how Subversion works. We're still on 1.6x.
Given
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Giulio Troccoli
giulio.trocc...@mediatelgroup.co.uk wrote:
Do you mean that the files are shown with an A in the first column?
No, they're shown as
? logs/error.log
? logs/access.log
But they're not automagically ignored, even though they match logs/*
which
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Geoff Hoffman ghoff...@cardinalpath.comwrote:
Mark, I believe you, however I don't see which part of the docs you link
to addresses this case...
This part:
When found on a versioned directory, the svn:ignore property is expected to
contain a list of
Ahhh Rats. Thanks I missed that.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM, Mark Phippard markp...@gmail.com wrote:
in that same directory.
--
This email, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended
recipient and may contain confidential information. If you are not the
On 19/03/12 17:11, Geoff Hoffman wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Giulio Troccoli
giulio.trocc...@mediatelgroup.co.uk
mailto:giulio.trocc...@mediatelgroup.co.uk wrote:
Do you mean that the files are shown with an A in the first column?
No, they're shown as
? logs/error.log
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Giulio Troccoli
giulio.trocc...@mediatelgroup.co.uk wrote:
On 19/03/12 17:11, Geoff Hoffman wrote:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 9:32 AM, Giulio Troccoli
giulio.trocc...@mediatelgroup.co.uk wrote:
Do you mean that the files are shown with an A in the first
Philip Martin philip.mar...@wandisco.com writes:
I can reproduce ove ra_local:
svnadmin create repo
svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/A
svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/B
svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc1
svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc2
svn ps svn:mergeinfo /P:2 wc1/A
svn ps svn:mergeinfo /Q:2
Philip Martin wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 17:25:22 +:
Philip Martin philip.mar...@wandisco.com writes:
I can reproduce ove ra_local:
svnadmin create repo
svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/A
svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/B
svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc1
svn co file://`pwd`/repo
On Mar 19, 2012, at 12:16, Giulio Troccoli wrote:
Ok, have you tried ignoring just logs rather than all files, I mean svn ps
svn:ignore logs ?
The logs directory has already been added and committed; telling Subversion to
now ignore it will do nothing useful.
On 03/19/2012 01:25 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
Philip Martin philip.mar...@wandisco.com writes:
I can reproduce ove ra_local:
svnadmin create repo
svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/A
svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/B
svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc1
svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc2
svn ps
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:57:51 -0400:
Is this problem specific to the FSFS backend?
No.
% ../runpytest svnadmin mergeinfo_race --fs-type bdb
2012-03-19 20:21:44 [WARNING] CWD:
/home/daniel/src/svn/t1/subversion/tests/cmdline
2012-03-19 20:21:44 [WARNING] EXCEPTION:
C. Michael Pilato cmpil...@collab.net writes:
On 03/19/2012 01:25 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
Philip Martin philip.mar...@wandisco.com writes:
I can reproduce ove ra_local:
svnadmin create repo
svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/A
svn mkdir -mm file://`pwd`/repo/B
svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc1
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 10:50 AM, Ryan Schmidt
subversion-20...@ryandesign.com wrote:
On Mar 19, 2012, at 12:16, Giulio Troccoli wrote:
Ok, have you tried ignoring just logs rather than all files, I mean svn
ps svn:ignore logs ?
The logs directory has already been added and committed;
Daniel Shahaf danie...@elego.de writes:
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:57:51 -0400:
Is this problem specific to the FSFS backend?
No.
% ../runpytest svnadmin mergeinfo_race --fs-type bdb
2012-03-19 20:21:44 [WARNING] CWD:
On 03/19/2012 02:24 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
C. Michael Pilato cmpil...@collab.net writes:
Is this problem specific to the FSFS backend?
Yes, I think it is.
For BDB the dag_node_t type in dag.c doesn't have a node_revision
member. When update_ancestry does svn_fs_bdb__put_node_revision
Philip Martin wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 18:31:41 +:
Daniel Shahaf danie...@elego.de writes:
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:57:51 -0400:
Is this problem specific to the FSFS backend?
No.
% ../runpytest svnadmin mergeinfo_race --fs-type bdb
2012-03-19
Philip Martin philip.mar...@wandisco.com writes:
If I use the debugger to manually set target-node_revision to NULL
inside svn_fs_fs__dag_increment_mergeinfo_count then the commit works.
I'm not exactly sure how all the FSFS caching layers are supposed to
interact. Is tree.c:update_ancestry
Philip Martin wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 18:45:37 +:
Philip Martin philip.mar...@wandisco.com writes:
If I use the debugger to manually set target-node_revision to NULL
inside svn_fs_fs__dag_increment_mergeinfo_count then the commit works.
I'm not exactly sure how all the FSFS
Hello Daniel, Philip.
I have been following the thread: #4129 is reproducible Re:
predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message.
It looks like you all have it figured out now. Good job.
Do you need any more information from me at this point? Thanks.
Jason Wong.
Jason Wong wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:41:19 -0700:
Hello Daniel, Philip.
I have been following the thread: #4129 is reproducible Re:
predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message.
It looks like you all have it figured out now. Good job.
Do you need any more
Hello,
I'm wondering if there is any strategy for temporary preventing people
from committing to a svn repository, without the person who sets the hook
(or sth similar) being the admin of the svn repository. Thus, in this
case, there is no option to directly access the /hooks/ folder.
A poor
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Michael Hüttermann
mich...@huettermann.net wrote:
Hello,
I'm wondering if there is any strategy for temporary preventing people
from committing to a svn repository, without the person who sets the hook
(or sth similar) being the admin of the svn repository.
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Daniel Shahaf danie...@elego.de wrote:
Jason Wong wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:41:19 -0700:
Hello Daniel, Philip.
I have been following the thread: #4129 is reproducible Re:
predecessor count for the root node-revision is wrong message.
It looks like you
Jason Wong wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 15:34:53 -0700:
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 1:56 PM, Daniel Shahaf danie...@elego.de wrote:
Jason Wong wrote on Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 13:41:19 -0700:
Hello Daniel, Philip.
I have been following the thread: #4129 is reproducible Re:
predecessor count
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 5:06 PM, Michael Hüttermann mich...@huettermann.net
wrote:
Hello,
I'm wondering if there is any strategy for temporary preventing people
from committing to a svn repository, without the person who sets the hook
(or sth similar) being the admin of the svn repository.
39 matches
Mail list logo
