Re: Subversion in 2010

On 01/04/2010 02:32 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 01:45:07PM -0500, Mark Mielke wrote: If it doesn't resolve them (any? all?) yet, then this would explain one of the results I saw and couldn't explain. It knew the files had moved, it said it completed the merge - but th

Re: Shut down us...@s.t.o on Jan. 7.

Hyrum K. Wright wrote: > It's time to shut down us...@s.t.o. Most of the threads are now on > us...@s.a.o, people are back from holiday, and we've already given plenty > of notice that a shutdown was imminent. I propose we send mail to > us...@s.t.o today, indicating that no new mail will be acce

Re: svnsync "207 Multi-Status" failure with http access method and property "svn:"

Ben Collins-Sussman wrote: > Is svnserve really allowing you to create a random svn: junk property? > I was pretty sure that servers validated svn: properties -- only a > scant few exist, and users aren't supposed to be able to invent them. > My guess is that apache is throwing an error (207 mult-s

RE: Subversion in 2010

On Mon, January 04, 2010 at 5:59 PM, Mark Phippard wrote: > From users I have heard from the two main themes would be: > > 1) Performance > > 2) Handling of move/renames > > Of course there are always other issues like server-based > configuration etc. but these seem t

Re: Subversion in 2010

Mark Mielke writes: >I think this is only true in the sense that more users have a better >chance of exposing existing problems. (Assuming the 'bugs' are actual >bugs' and not feature requests) > >More bugs means more technical debt, which means less efficiency for >the entire project over time. A

Re: svnsync "207 Multi-Status" failure with http access method and property "svn:"

Is svnserve really allowing you to create a random svn: junk property? I was pretty sure that servers validated svn: properties -- only a scant few exist, and users aren't supposed to be able to invent them. My guess is that apache is throwing an error (207 mult-status probably contains a 5XX code

Odd download pattern for SVN 1.6.0 (yes, "0")

I just today noticed that a lot of people are still downloading CollabNet's certified Subversion Server package, vintage 1.6.0-1 (RC1 of 1.6.0, forsooth). In fact, it was our number one download last week, by quite a wide margin. Intrigued, I dug deeper, and discovered that at least the top

Re: Subversion in 2010

On 01/04/2010 06:46 PM, Karl Fogel wrote: "Hyrum K. Wright" writes: Because we are a large and mature project, there is also a certain amount of maintenance cost just to maintain parity with ourselves and other SCM systems. Our ever-increasing list of outstanding issues witnesses to the fa

Re: Subversion in 2010

On 01/04/2010 05:59 PM, Mark Phippard wrote: It is probably worth noting that Git, and probably all of the DVCS options, are particularly strong in these two areas. I suspect if we could make significant improvements in these areas we would remove the desire of a lot of people to migrate away fr

Apache accounts

Neels, I saw your IRC asking about an Apache account. I never even requested one for you because I had no idea you'd sent in an ICLA. The spreadsheet that I sent out was the indicator that I needed to do something, and it wasn't updated. I verified that your ICLA has been recorded and will (shortl

Re: Subversion in 2010

"Hyrum K. Wright" writes: >Because we are a large and mature project, there is also a certain >amount of maintenance cost just to maintain parity with ourselves and >other SCM systems. Our ever-increasing list of outstanding issues >witnesses to the fact that we aren't very good at maintaining th

Re: Subversion in 2010

On Jan 4, 2010, at 4:59 PM, Mark Phippard wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Karl Fogel wrote: > >> So maybe a way to approach this is to ask: >> >> For those for whom Subversion is currently the best solution, what >> *else* do they need it to do? > > From users I have heard from the t

Re: Subversion in 2010

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Karl Fogel wrote: > So maybe a way to approach this is to ask: > > For those for whom Subversion is currently the best solution, what > *else* do they need it to do? >From users I have heard from the two main themes would be: 1) Performance 2) Handling of move/r

Re: Subversion in 2010

"C. Michael Pilato" writes: >A hearty +1 to all of what you've indicated! Likewise! >Additionally, in 2010, I'd like to work with other devs that care to restore >some sense direction to this product. At a minimum, that means identifying >and killing the bugs and misfeatures that are impeding

Re: Roadmap for 1.7 end game?

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 06:18:28PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 06:12:43PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote: > > I still have some work to do for svn patch. The current hunk-application > > code ends up ignoring valid hunks in certain situations. I already know > > how I want

Re: 1.6.7 Update

On Jan 4, 2010, at 1:09 PM, Paul Burba wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Hyrum K. Wright > wrote: >> There have been several reports of problems in the 1.6.7 tarballs, so I'm >> feeling inclined to pull them and re-roll as 1.6.8 with the most recent >> fixes on the 1.6.x branch. I wou

Re: svnsync "207 Multi-Status" failure with http access method and property "svn:"

Self-bump and post to dev list also. Posting 2 days before Christmas seems to be a bad way to get a response ... ;> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 1:13 PM, Kylo Ginsberg wrote: > Preparatory to setting up a proxy server, I'm trying to svnsync a > repository from 1.6.6 server to another 1.6.6 server (bo

Re: Roadmap for 1.7 end game?

On Dec 17, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Mark Phippard wrote: > Could someone share the big picture of what is left to do to get us to > the 1.7 release? All I know at this point is that it seems like there > is still a lot of work to do. Is there a list somewhere that is > tracking what needs to be done?

Re: Subversion in 2010

On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 01:45:07PM -0500, Mark Mielke wrote: > On 01/04/2010 01:25 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > >On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 01:01:14PM -0500, Mark Mielke wrote: > >>Again, I appreciate the unique difficulties that the Subversion > >>architecture introduces, and I appreciate the efforts

Re: 1.6.7 Update

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:11 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote: > There have been several reports of problems in the 1.6.7 tarballs, so I'm > feeling inclined to pull them and re-roll as 1.6.8 with the most recent fixes > on the 1.6.x branch.  I would not reroll until the ruby binding segfault has > be

Re: Subversion in 2010

On 01/04/2010 01:25 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 01:01:14PM -0500, Mark Mielke wrote: Again, I appreciate the unique difficulties that the Subversion architecture introduces, and I appreciate the efforts done so far - merge tracking in 1.5, tree conflict resolution in 1

Re: Subversion in 2010

On 01/04/2010 01:17 PM, Mark Phippard wrote: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Mark Mielke wrote: We are still seeing reports that Subversion merges across branches are failing in areas where we expect them to succeed. I am encouraging our teams to move from ClearCase to Subversion, and the m

Re: Apache, Subversion hooks, and locales

On Jan 4, 2010, at 5:48 AM, Mark Phippard wrote: Could we just declare that the paths are passed as UTF-8 strings? Any chance of declaring that the paths are not only UTF-8, but also *composed* UTF-8? -==- Jack Repenning Chief Technology Officer CollabNet, Inc. 8000 Marina Boulevard, Suite

Re: Subversion in 2010

On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 01:17:51PM -0500, Mark Phippard wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Mark Mielke wrote: > > Another related area of limitation here is the "reintegrate". This seems > > fundamentally broken to me. That the branch needs to be removed and > > re-created in order to "reint

Re: Subversion in 2010

On Mon, Jan 04, 2010 at 01:01:14PM -0500, Mark Mielke wrote: > Again, I appreciate the unique difficulties that the Subversion > architecture introduces, and I appreciate the efforts done so far - > merge tracking in 1.5, tree conflict resolution in 1.6 - but this > area still needs work. I'd be r

Re: Subversion in 2010

On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote: > I hope the holidays have been good for everybody in the Subversion community. >  In > between spending some quality time with family, and eating more than I ought, > I've done a > bit thinking about Subversion in 2010, what I'd like to see

Re: Subversion in 2010

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Mark Mielke wrote: > We are still seeing reports that Subversion merges across branches are > failing in areas where we expect them to succeed. I am encouraging our teams > to move from ClearCase to Subversion, and the merge limitations of > Subversion that can eit

Re: Subversion in 2010

I know it's been a trouble-some subject, and a lot of effort has been invested already, but - I would like to see "ensuring reliable merges across branches" remain as a priority, even if it is only a priority to address defects. Parallel development is one of the most important features of a

Re: svn commit: r895677 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x: ./ CHANGES STATUS subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c subversion/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo.c subversion/tests/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo-test.c

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > Hyrum K. Wright wrote: >> On Jan 4, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Bert Huijben wrote: >> >> -Original Message- >> >> From: hwri...@apache.org [mailto:hwri...@apache.org] >> >> Propchange: subversion/branches/1.6.x/ >> >> --

Re: svn commit: r895677 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x: ./ CHANGES STATUS subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c subversion/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo.c subversion/tests/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo-test.c

Hyrum K. Wright wrote: > On Jan 4, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Bert Huijben wrote: > >> -Original Message- > >> From: hwri...@apache.org [mailto:hwri...@apache.org] > >> Propchange: subversion/branches/1.6.x/ > >> -- > >> --

Re: svn commit: r895677 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x: ./ CHANGES STATUS subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c subversion/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo.c subversion/tests/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo-test.c

On Jan 4, 2010, at 11:18 AM, Bert Huijben wrote: > > >> -Original Message- >> From: hwri...@apache.org [mailto:hwri...@apache.org] >> Sent: maandag 4 januari 2010 17:17 >> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org >> Subject: svn commit: r895677 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x: ./ CHANGES >> ST

Re: Subversion in 2010

On Mon, 2010-01-04 at 11:31 -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > "To be a compelling replacement for git/Mercurial", perhaps? That seems tough. The major architectural differences between git/Mercurial/Bazaar and Subversion are: * No commitment to mixed-revision working copies. * Full history o

RE: svn commit: r895677 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x: ./ CHANGES STATUS subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c subversion/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo.c subversion/tests/libsvn_subr/mergeinfo-test.c

> -Original Message- > From: hwri...@apache.org [mailto:hwri...@apache.org] > Sent: maandag 4 januari 2010 17:17 > To: comm...@subversion.apache.org > Subject: svn commit: r895677 - in /subversion/branches/1.6.x: ./ CHANGES > STATUS subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c > subversion/libsvn_sub

Re: Předmět:,Backends issues overview and SQL backend features

Jan Horák writes: > Hi, while I'm preparing to SQL backend analyses/design I've wrote up > some FSFS and BDB issues and then some features, that can be expected > from SQL backend. I will appreciate any reaction to following points > (sorry for the length, but I tried to short it as much as possi

1.6.7 Update

There have been several reports of problems in the 1.6.7 tarballs, so I'm feeling inclined to pull them and re-roll as 1.6.8 with the most recent fixes on the 1.6.x branch. I would not reroll until the ruby binding segfault has been fixed. Thoughts? -Hyrum

Re: 1.6.7 up for signing/testing

On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Peter Samuelson wrote: > > [Branko Cibej] >> I thought we were supposed to be more tolerant of mis-fomatted >> mergeinfo, not suddenly change the mergeinfo format? What am I missing? > > I thought it was both - parse incorrect mergeinfo, but when writing it > out,

Re: svn commit: r895653 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/bindings/swig/python/tests/mergeinfo.py

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 10:00 AM, wrote: > Author: hwright > Date: Mon Jan  4 15:00:14 2010 > New Revision: 895653 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=895653&view=rev > Log: > Update a test expectation, as a result of recent mergeinfo sanitation. > > * subversion/bindings/swig/python/tests/m

Re: Subversion in 2010

A hearty +1 to all of what you've indicated! Additionally, in 2010, I'd like to work with other devs that care to restore some sense direction to this product. At a minimum, that means identifying and killing the bugs and misfeatures that are impeding forward motion, and thinking farther ahead th

Předmět:,Backends issues overview and S QL backend features

Hi, while I'm preparing to SQL backend analyses/design I've wrote up some FSFS and BDB issues and then some features, that can be expected from SQL backend. I will appreciate any reaction to following points (sorry for the length, but I tried to short it as much as possible). First FSFS and BD

Re: Shut down us...@s.t.o on Jan. 7.

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote: > It's time to shut down us...@s.t.o.  Most of the threads are now on > us...@s.a.o, people are back from holiday, and we've already given plenty of > notice that a shutdown was imminent.  I propose we send mail to us...@s.t.o > today, ind

Shut down us...@s.t.o on Jan. 7.

It's time to shut down us...@s.t.o. Most of the threads are now on us...@s.a.o, people are back from holiday, and we've already given plenty of notice that a shutdown was imminent. I propose we send mail to us...@s.t.o today, indicating that no new mail will be accepted after Jan. 7. We can c

Re: Apache, Subversion hooks, and locales

Mark Phippard wrote: > On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:43 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > >> But what about original problem with encodings? If I recall correctly, >> Apache is intentionally locale-ignorant. Like, not just "I don't know about >> the system locale", but "I'd like to ignore the system lo

Thoughts on commit via the out-dated(by irrelevant revisions i.e just by number) mirror

Hi All, Reposting http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/subversion-dev/200912.mbox/browser for easy context with recent findings. Of late we have observed errors like the following when committing via the european mirror. "The specified baseline is not the latest baseline, so it may not

Re: Apache, Subversion hooks, and locales

Just stumbled across issue #2487, which tracks some of this same discussion: http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2487 Is the environment-variable-based workaround included in that issue worth "productizing"? C. Michael Pilato wrote: > CollabNet has a customer who's having trouble

Re: Apache, Subversion hooks, and locales

On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:43 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > But what about original problem with encodings?  If I recall correctly, > Apache is intentionally locale-ignorant.  Like, not just "I don't know about > the system locale", but "I'd like to ignore the system locale.  On purpose. >  For re

Apache, Subversion hooks, and locales

CollabNet has a customer who's having trouble with locking files with Chinese names. They are hosting with Apache, and when they attempt to lock such a file, the server process hangs and the client sits doing nothing until a timeout kicks in and breaks the connection. (I can easily reproduce the

Re: 1.6.7 up for signing/testing

On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 10:35 AM, 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

Re: [RFC] mtime functional specification notes

On Mon, 2010-01-04, Ed wrote: > Hi Philip, > > Sorry for the long delay in response. Year end issues and > problems prevented me from making a decent response to your > post. > > Philip Martin wrote: > > > > Edmund writes: > > > >> +* High-level semantics we are trying to achieve: > >> + > >

Re: [PATCH] v2: Simplify running specific tests on Windows

On Wed, 2009-12-09, Chris Foote wrote: > I have incorporated both of Bert and Daniels suggestions into the > patch (attached). Thanks Chris. Functionally it looks good. Just some mainly cosmetic comments below. (One's actually bug but evidently in a bit of code that doesn't matter much in practice

Re: [RFC] mtime functional specification notes

Philipp Marek wrote: On Montag, 21. Dezember 2009, Branko Čibej wrote: Edmund Wong wrote: The patch is attached to this one. Thanks Phlip! Apparently you're having trouble sending patches, because nothing came through again. Do you have an outgoing mail filter, perhaps? I don't believe Apache