On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 09:35 -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> A little late, but never never, here's the promised tarballs for Subversion
> 1.6.7. The magic revision is r893529, and you can find the tarballs here:
>
> http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.7/
>
> Please be sure to test the bindin
A little late, but never never, here's the promised tarballs for Subversion
1.6.7. The magic revision is r893529, and you can find the tarballs here:
http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.7/
Please be sure to test the bindings.
You know the drill: signatures from full committers back to me, a
Philip Martin wrote:
> node_origins_update() also has a loop that doesn't use an iteration
> pool:
>
> SVN_ERR(svn_fs_bdb__changes_fetch_raw(&changes, trail->fs, old_txn_id,
> trail,
> scratch_pool));
> for (i = 0; i < changes->nelts; i++)
> {
>
>
Julian Foad writes:
> Philip Martin wrote:
>> julianf...@apache.org writes:
>>
>> > + if (txn_obj->copies)
>> > +{
>> > + int i;
>> > +
>> > + for (i = 0; i < txn_obj->copies->nelts; i++)
>> > +{
>>
>> Is this loop big enough to warrent an iteration pool?
>
> It could be
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> Philip Martin wrote:
> >
> > Is this loop big enough to warrent an iteration pool?
>
> It could be large in some revisions, so yes.
[...]
> > Do those comparisons fail or what?
>
> Oh, no, I commented them out because the function didn't have the
> old_copy_id and old_tx
Philip Martin wrote:
> julianf...@apache.org writes:
>
> > + if (txn_obj->copies)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < txn_obj->copies->nelts; i++)
> > +{
>
> Is this loop big enough to warrent an iteration pool?
It could be large in some revisions, so yes.
> >
julianf...@apache.org writes:
> + if (txn_obj->copies)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = 0; i < txn_obj->copies->nelts; i++)
> +{
Is this loop big enough to warrent an iteration pool?
> + const char *txn_copy_id = APR_ARRAY_IDX(txn_obj->copies, i,
> +
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 19:21 +, Julian Foad wrote:
> Hi, Obliterate fans.
>
> As of r893267, if you compile with "-DSVN_WITH_EXPERIMENTAL_OBLITERATE",
> you get an "svn obliterate" subcommand which is capable of obliterating
> the latest revision of a file. In my tests so far, it seems to work
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 06:52, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> This on IRC today:
>
> question on `svn upgrade`, it doesn't seem to go into external dirs
> is that a bug or feature?
> * cmpilato flips a coin.
> bug!
> i can't think of a reason why you'd want to upgrade the primary
> WC and not the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Log:
Fix a typo and perform minor formatting tweaks.
* notes/tree-conflicts/use-cases.txt
Add some clarity by including the 'Developer' info and a minor
formatting tweak.
* subversion/libsvn_wc/adm_crawler.c
(report_revisions_and_depths): s/tr
10 matches
Mail list logo
