Is /staging/ not actually used, contrary to the README? ... I've seen some recent mods directly to publish, but (given my general, recent absence) followed the README and just modified /staging/.
Should I just merge this mod to publish, and stop using staging? On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 7:46 AM, <gst...@apache.org> wrote: > Author: gstein > Date: Tue Feb 27 13:46:48 2018 > New Revision: 1825449 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1825449&view=rev > Log: > rewrite unclear sentence. fix typo. > > Modified: > subversion/site/staging/docs/release-notes/1.10.html > > Modified: subversion/site/staging/docs/release-notes/1.10.html > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/site/staging/docs/ > release-notes/1.10.html?rev=1825449&r1=1825448&r2=1825449&view=diff > ============================================================ > ================== > --- subversion/site/staging/docs/release-notes/1.10.html (original) > +++ subversion/site/staging/docs/release-notes/1.10.html Tue Feb 27 > 13:46:48 2018 > @@ -538,7 +538,7 @@ version, which still uses zlib compressi > title="Link to this section">¶</a> > </h4> > > -<p>The default filesystem format is now a new format, numbered 8. The > format > +<p>The default filesystem format has been upgraded to version 8. The > format > bump is required to allow using LZ4 compression for the data that is > stored > on the disk. (The <tt>svnadmin info</tt> command displays the filesystem > format number of a repository.)</p> > @@ -649,7 +649,7 @@ as a single, efficient server-side query > > <p><tt>svnbench</tt> now displays its wall-clock run time and the total > number of bytes transferred across the network. The > <tt>--with-no-revprops</tt> > -option which did not actually work in Subversion 1.9 haas been fixed.</p> > +option which did not actually work in Subversion 1.9 has been fixed.</p> > > </div> <!-- svnbench --> > > > >
