Hi.
It is possible to force svnserve daemon to exit using trivial (and valid) TCP
session:
14:04:18.277961 IP6 fdef::1.34130 >
fd87:e01f:53ee:1203:6672:6565:57fa:eb29.3690: Flags [S], seq 3296066821, win
17880, options [mss 1220,nop,nop,sackOK,nop,wscale 7], length 0
14:04:18.278001 IP6 fd87:e
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Zé wrote:
>
> No one is dismissing anyone's work. Quite the contrary. I don't know
I'm afriad you did, with the insistence that branching *in the form
you expect* is a given in all SCM's, and that Subversion is therefore
clearly missing a very critical and quite n
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Zé wrote:
>>
> What has been said regarding
> subversions lack of support for branching was, I think, quite clear.
Well, no. The only thing you've made clear is that you don't like it
or you don't understand how it is supposed to be used. You have not
explained
> -Original Message-
> From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikes...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:05 AM
> To: Zé
> Cc: Subversion
> Subject: Re: Subversion Doesn't Have Branches aka Crossing the Streams
> aka Branches as First Class Objects?
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:33 PM,
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Andrew Reedick
wrote:
>
>
> Isolating change is a fundamental tenet behind branching. The fact that an
> "outside" change can affect a branch (and a tagged baseline) is wrong by
> definition.
>
OK, but that means you need to anchor the concept of 'this branch'
On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:06:52 +, Andrew Reedick wrote:
...
> In the Future(tm), Subversion, IMHO, will need to treat branches (and tags)
> as first class objects because branches and tags are core concepts of modern
> version control systems.
So what? SVN decided to map them into the director
