On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:33 PM, Lathan Bidwell lat...@andrews.edu wrote:
I usually think in revision numbers or tag names instead of pretending
there was only one. If, instead of tracking HEAD, you copied each
release to a new TAG with your own naming scheme you could just switch
your
On 16.03.2015 22:15, Pete Harlan wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Branko Čibej br...@wandisco.com wrote:
A colleague argued that creating the mergeinfo for a subtree in this
case (root-root merge) is a simple bug because mergeinfo says what
inputs were considered to come up with the
Hi,
finally we would like to restructure our badly structured svn repo.
Over time a lot of stuff flew into this repo. I have used kdesvn for
moving the trees online in the repo. kdesvn does a copy and delete
when moving. I have also tried to use a svn move. Steps were as follows:
1. Created a
Hi,
I have a content management system running on top of SVN. My web servers
run a post commit hook that does svn update off of svnlook after every
commit.
I currently have a Publish operation which I implement by doing svn
delete $prod_url svn cp $trunk_url $prod_url. (both repo urls)
This
Bert Huijben wrote on Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:08:00 +:
Yes, we probably should.
Looks like you just did, in r1666832. Thanks. Nominate it for backport?
% nominate.pl r1666832 Resolves an assertion
:-)
Daniel
The problem here is an editor that drives a file or directory add in a
On 16.03.2015 15:58, Marc Strapetz wrote:
From my experiments with Subversion 1.9 binaries and the listed
changes in the release notes, Subversion 1.9 seems to be backwards
compatible with Subversion 1.8 working copies. Is that correct?
There are no schema changes, but 1.9 is faster at many
On 16.03.2015 16:34, Branko Čibej wrote: On 16.03.2015 15:58, Marc
Strapetz wrote:
From my experiments with Subversion 1.9 binaries and the listed
changes in the release notes, Subversion 1.9 seems to be backwards
compatible with Subversion 1.8 working copies. Is that correct?
There are no
-Original Message-
From: Marc Strapetz [mailto:marc.strap...@syntevo.com]
Sent: maandag 16 maart 2015 17:14
To: users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Subversion 1.9 working copy compatibility
On 16.03.2015 16:34, Branko Čibej wrote: On 16.03.2015 15:58, Marc
Strapetz wrote:
From my experiments with Subversion 1.9 binaries and the listed changes
in the release notes, Subversion 1.9 seems to be backwards compatible
with Subversion 1.8 working copies. Is that correct? If so, it makes
sense to update the Upgrading the Working Copy section:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Pete Harlan pchpubli...@gmail.com wrote:
As you pointed out, my original report erroneously focused on
svn:mergeinfo appearing, when the real issue is that the new
svn:mergeinfo doesn't disappear (still) when the user marks the
conflict resolved. (And I
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Lathan Bidwell lat...@andrews.edu wrote:
I have a content management system running on top of SVN. My web servers
run a post commit hook that does svn update off of svnlook after every
commit.
I currently have a Publish operation which I implement by
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:24 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Lathan Bidwell lat...@andrews.edu
wrote:
Don't you really want to just 'svn switch' your production workspace
to the new production target url instead of deleting and checking out
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Lathan Bidwell lat...@andrews.edu
wrote:
I have a content management system running on top of SVN. My web
servers
run a post commit hook that does svn update off of svnlook
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Branko Čibej br...@wandisco.com wrote:
A colleague argued that creating the mergeinfo for a subtree in this
case (root-root merge) is a simple bug because mergeinfo says what
inputs were considered to come up with the result, not just those that
were used.
On Mar 16, 2015, at 2:04 PM, Lathan Bidwell lat...@andrews.edu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com
mailto:lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Lathan Bidwell lat...@andrews.edu
mailto:lat...@andrews.edu wrote:
I
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Lathan Bidwell lat...@andrews.edu wrote:
Don't you really want to just 'svn switch' your production workspace
to the new production target url instead of deleting and checking out
again? As long as the content shares ancestry it should just move the
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 5:15 PM, jbl...@icloud.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2015, at 2:04 PM, Lathan Bidwell lat...@andrews.edu wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Lathan Bidwell lat...@andrews.edu
wrote:
I
On Mar 16, 2015, at 8:19 AM, Lathan Bidwell wrote:
I have a content management system running on top of SVN. My web servers run
a post commit hook that does svn update off of svnlook after every commit.
I currently have a Publish operation which I implement by doing svn delete
$prod_url
On 16.03.2015 17:49, Bert Huijben wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Marc Strapetz [mailto:marc.strap...@syntevo.com]
Sent: maandag 16 maart 2015 17:14
To: users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Subversion 1.9 working copy compatibility
On 16.03.2015 16:34, Branko Čibej wrote: On
On 16.03.2015 19:02, Pete Harlan wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 4:05 PM, Pete Harlan pchpubli...@gmail.com wrote:
As you pointed out, my original report erroneously focused on
svn:mergeinfo appearing, when the real issue is that the new
svn:mergeinfo doesn't disappear (still) when the user
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 3:15 PM, Ryan Schmidt
subversion-2...@ryandesign.com wrote:
On Mar 16, 2015, at 8:19 AM, Lathan Bidwell wrote:
I have a content management system running on top of SVN. My web servers
run a post commit hook that does svn update off of svnlook after every
commit.
21 matches
Mail list logo
