Hello,
I've setup Hudson jobs to build Subversion in Apache Build farm. Right
now, i've setup 4 jobs, viz:
x subversion-1.6.x-solaris
x subversion-1.6.x-ubuntu
x subversion-trunk-solaris
x subversion-trunk-ubuntu
They are executed against appropriate branch in
There's no reason you shouldn't expect be able to call repos_replay on
the root of r0, right?
As of now if send_deltas is true it tries to create a root for r-1,
which predictably fails.
I think we can just hardcode it to call set_target_revision(0) and then return.
--dave
--
glas...@davidglas
On Nov 23, 2009, at 11:07 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
> "Bert Huijben" writes:
>
> Thanks! Some of my questions may not have been very clear, there may
> have been confusion between "Subversion locks" and "SQLite locks", but
> your answers were good enough.
Yes; thanks, Bert. My explanations ca
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>
>> Brane,
>>
>> A disclaimer: I haven't generated preprocessed source in an age and
>> even then it was with much simpler code than ours...so maybe I'm doing
>> thi
On Nov 21, 2009, at 3:03 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>
> On Nov 21, 2009, at 12:33 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>
>> I don't recall ANY discussion of rewriting history.
>>
>> I'm somewhat peeved.
>
> Sorry 'bout that; I didn't interpret this as rewriting history. I'm happy to
> change these edits b
Paul Burba wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> Paul Burba wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>
>>>
Paul Burba wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:42 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>
>>> Paul Burba wrote:
>>>
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> 2009-11-19 16:41:43 Paul Burba nap
"Bert Huijben" writes:
Thanks! Some of my questions may not have been very clear, there may
have been confusion between "Subversion locks" and "SQLite locks", but
your answers were good enough.
> An atomic transaction which checks the existance of a write lock inside a
> sqlite transaction can'
Paul Burba wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> Paul Burba wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
2009-11-19 16:41:43 Paul Burba napisał(a):
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.mar...@wandisco.com]
> Sent: maandag 23 november 2009 4:07
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: 'Hyrum K. Wright'; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r882232 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion:
> libsvn_client/revert.c tests/c
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 10:00 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2009-11-19 16:41:43 Paul Burba napisał(a):
>>>
On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 200
"Bert Huijben" writes:
> * The atomic operations. WC-NG operations that can operate without outside
> knowledge learned before the operation.
>
> These functions that are just one sqlite transaction by itself, just need to
> make sure nobody else has a write lock. Having a write lock is not requi
Paul Burba wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
> wrote:
>
>> 2009-11-19 16:41:43 Paul Burba napisał(a):
>>
>>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
>>>
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
wrote:
> 2009-11-19 16:41:43 Paul Burba napisał(a):
>> On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
>> > On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 2:42 PM, Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis
>> > wrote:
>> >> Author: arfrever
>> >> Date:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Julian Foad wrote:
>> If we're to use info_receiver_relpath_wrapper() and a baton to pass the
>> relative path and other info, won't it resemble the implementation(for
>> backward compatibility)which is at present?
>
> Kannan,
>
> I'm sorry, I don't
[Stefan Sperling]
> How?
> 'echo $(CLEAN_FILES) | xargs' has the same problem (can fail at 'echo')
In theory it can, but echo is almost always a shell builtin. So the
kernel argument length limit does not apply, only whatever limit the
shell may have.
--
Peter Samuelson | org-tld!p12n!peter | h
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 07:16:49AM -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 3:03 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > Speaking of which, rm -f $(CLEAN_FILES) could also end up being too
> > long on certain types of UNIX. So maybe put .pycs into a different list.
> > Or if we can find out the m
On Nov 23, 2009, at 3:03 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:44:32AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>>
>> [Martin Furter]
>>> --- Makefile.in (revision 883010)
>>> +++ Makefile.in (working copy)
>>> @@ -369,8 +369,8 @@
>>>rm -f $(CLEAN_FILES)
>>>find $(CTYPES_P
> -Original Message-
> From: i...@apache.org [mailto:i...@apache.org]
> Sent: zaterdag 21 november 2009 10:40
> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r882999 -
> /subversion/trunk/build/generator/gen_win.py
>
> Author: ivan
> Date: Sat Nov 21 21:40:05 2009
> New Revisi
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.mar...@wandisco.com]
> Sent: maandag 23 november 2009 11:09
> To: Hyrum K. Wright
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r882232 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion:
> libsvn_client/revert.c tests/cmdline/schedule
Philip Martin writes:
> The current locking appears to be broken, there are paths that modify
> the metadata without verifying that a lock is held. I don't know how
> widespread this is
I scattered calls to svn_wc__write_check through libsvn_wc/wc_db.c and
I get over a hundred regression test f
"Hyrum K. Wright" writes:
> [ sorry it's taken a few days to followup with this ]
>
> On Nov 20, 2009, at 1:00 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
>> How do we fix it? I suppose we could simply make it not an error to
>> release locks from directories that don't exist. That would have
>> the drawback that
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:44:32AM -0600, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Martin Furter]
> > --- Makefile.in (revision 883010)
> > +++ Makefile.in (working copy)
> > @@ -369,8 +369,8 @@
> > rm -f $(CLEAN_FILES)
> > find $(CTYPES_PYTHON_SRC_DIR) $(SWIG_PY_SRC_DIR) $(SWIG_PY_DIR) \
> >
23 matches
Mail list logo
