Re: Issue 3501: Repositories mounted on NFS don't work

2010-01-15 Thread Peter Samuelson
[Bert Huijben] > Do we need a backport of this fix to 1.6.x? Created and nominated branch 1.6.x-r898963. Peter

Re: svn commit: r899790 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/workqueue.c

2010-01-15 Thread Greg Stein
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 14:54, wrote: >... > +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/workqueue.c Fri Jan 15 19:54:47 2010 >... > @@ -1217,12 +1217,13 @@ >           is_file = (kind == svn_wc__db_kind_file || >                      kind == svn_wc__db_kind_symlink); > > -          SVN_ERR(svn_wc_

Re: svn commit: r899717 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/workqueue.c

2010-01-15 Thread Greg Stein
Hmm. Could this use base_get_info() instead? On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:10, wrote: > Author: hwright > Date: Fri Jan 15 17:10:10 2010 > New Revision: 899717 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=899717&view=rev > Log: > * subversion/libsvn_wc/workqueue.c >  (run_deletion_postcommit): Replace

Re: Issue 3501: Repositories mounted on NFS don't work

2010-01-15 Thread Peter Samuelson
[Bert Huijben] > Do we need a backport of this fix to 1.6.x? Hmmm - yeah - I guess it would be an easy backport to vote on. Even though, as you say, the fix doesn't literally merge cleanly. I'll try and remember to propose it tonight, when I have time to do the whole backport branch thing. Pet

Re: Subversion in 2010

2010-01-15 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 08:27:06PM +0100, Steinar Bang wrote: > AOL! Acronym Over Load? > On a side note, and still on the subject: is there any movement on > replacing the multiple .svn directories with a single one? Yes, that's one of the goals of wc-ng. > Another thing I would have liked to

Re: Subversion in 2010

2010-01-15 Thread Hyrum K. Wright
On Jan 15, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Steinar Bang wrote: > On a side note, and still on the subject: is there any movement on > replacing the multiple .svn directories with a single one? One of the greatest performance benefits of the current wc-ng development effort will come from such a migration. w

Re: Subversion in 2010

2010-01-15 Thread Steinar Bang
> Stefan Sperling : > hg patch queues also work well for this. Thanx for the heads up on both git-svn and hg patch queues. Both will certainly be better supported in development tools, than any home grown utility I could cook up. However... > But I'd also like to have this feature built int

Re: [NEW TARBALLS] Re: 1.6.8 up for signing / testing

2010-01-15 Thread Paul Burba
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:04 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 09:49:44AM +, Philip Martin wrote: >> So serf works "out of the box" only for a Windows release build; it >> fails for a Windows debug build, a Linux build or an OSX build >> (assuming OSX is like Linux).  These

Re: davautocheck - "(98)Address already in use: make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:xxxx"

2010-01-15 Thread Julian Foad
Philip Martin wrote: > Philip Martin writes: > > > I get the same error as you on Ubuntu, strace shows it trying to bind > > twice to the same socket. I can get it to work by deleting localhost: > > from the Listen statement in the config file to just leave the port > > number: "Listen 19574".

Re: davautocheck - "(98)Address already in use: make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:xxxx"

2010-01-15 Thread Julian Foad
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 12:22 +, Philip Martin wrote: > Julian Foad writes: > > > I'm unable to run DAV tests this week. I'm getting: > > > > [[[ > > (98)Address already in use: make_sock: could not bind to address > > 127.0.0.1:3961 > > no listening sockets available, shutting down > > ]]] >

Re: davautocheck - "(98)Address already in use: make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:xxxx"

2010-01-15 Thread Philip Martin
Philip Martin writes: > I get the same error as you on Ubuntu, strace shows it trying to bind > twice to the same socket. I can get it to work by deleting localhost: > from the Listen statement in the config file to just leave the port > number: "Listen 19574". It also works with an explict 12

Re: davautocheck - "(98)Address already in use: make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:xxxx"

2010-01-15 Thread Philip Martin
Julian Foad writes: > I'm unable to run DAV tests this week. I'm getting: > > [[[ > (98)Address already in use: make_sock: could not bind to address > 127.0.0.1:3961 > no listening sockets available, shutting down > ]]] > > every time I try. Senthil is getting the same on Ubuntu, > but it works

about that patch: duplicate not a duplicate?

2010-01-15 Thread Neels J Hofmeyr
Hi Greg, I committed a wc-ng patch weeeks ago, where there was a helper function that you said was duplicate functionality to svn_wc__internal_node_get_url(). Because I was busy with a customer at the time I reverted the commit. Looking at it again, I think it's not a duplicate but a misnomer. I'

davautocheck - "(98)Address already in use: make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:xxxx"

2010-01-15 Thread Julian Foad
I'm unable to run DAV tests this week. I'm getting: [[[ (98)Address already in use: make_sock: could not bind to address 127.0.0.1:3961 no listening sockets available, shutting down ]]] every time I try. Senthil is getting the same on Ubuntu, but it works on his Debian machine. It sounds like Phi

Re: [NEW TARBALLS] Re: 1.6.8 up for signing / testing

2010-01-15 Thread Philip Martin
"Bert Huijben" writes: > I just performed a > $ svn diff -x -p ^/subversion/tags/1.6.6 ^/subversion/tags/1.6.8 > > 1.6.6-1.6.8.patch > > And I see no changes in serf at all. You've made a mistake somehow: r889935 | hwright | 2009-12-12 14:38:38 + (Sat, 12 Dec 2009) | 15 lines Reintegrate t

RE: [NEW TARBALLS] Re: 1.6.8 up for signing / testing

2010-01-15 Thread Bert Huijben
> -Original Message- > From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.mar...@wandisco.com] > Sent: vrijdag 15 januari 2010 10:50 > To: Paul Burba > Cc: Bert Huijben; Mark Phippard; Hyrum K. Wright; Joe Swatosh; Subversion > Dev > Subject: Re: [NEW TARBALLS] Re: 1.6.8 up for signing / testing > > Pau

Re: [NEW TARBALLS] Re: 1.6.8 up for signing / testing

2010-01-15 Thread Senthil Kumaran S
Philip Martin wrote: > Building -DNDEBUG makes the tests pass on Linux. Yes I confirm this. When I configure with 'CFLAGS=-DNDEBUG' option, there is no failures, here are the dependencies, APR 1.3.9 APR-UTIL 1.3.9 Apache httpd 2.2.14 Neon 0.29.3 Serf 0.3.0 BDB 4.7.25 OpenSSL 0.9.8g

RE: Issue 3501: Repositories mounted on NFS don't work

2010-01-15 Thread Bert Huijben
> -Original Message- > From: Peter Samuelson [mailto:pe...@p12n.org] > Sent: woensdag 13 januari 2010 23:07 > To: dev@subversion.apache.org; Edgar Fuß > Subject: Re: Issue 3501: Repositories mounted on NFS don't work > > > [Bert Huijben] > > I think it is easier to use svn_io_get_dirents2

Re: [NEW TARBALLS] Re: 1.6.8 up for signing / testing

2010-01-15 Thread Senthil Kumaran S
Mark Phippard wrote: > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Philip Martin > wrote: >> Paul Burba writes: >> >>> TESTED: >>> --- >>> [ fsfs | bdb ] x [ file | svn | http (neon) | http (serf) ] >> You're the second person to show the serf tests passing on Windows. >> Are you testing against the 1.

Re: [NEW TARBALLS] Re: 1.6.8 up for signing / testing

2010-01-15 Thread Stefan Sperling
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 09:49:44AM +, Philip Martin wrote: > So serf works "out of the box" only for a Windows release build; it > fails for a Windows debug build, a Linux build or an OSX build > (assuming OSX is like Linux). These other builds need to do something > like 'configure CFLAGS=-DN

Re: [NEW TARBALLS] Re: 1.6.8 up for signing / testing

2010-01-15 Thread Philip Martin
Paul Burba writes: >> The check is inside an assert(), so it only aborts in maintainer/DEBUG mode. >> >>        Bert > > Doh, Thanks Bert. I wasn't paying close enough attention. Indeed it > does assert with a debug build: > > C:\SVN\src-branch-1.6.x\Release\subversion\tests\cmdline\svn-test-wo

Re: More strict file permissions for the administrative ".svn" directories

2010-01-15 Thread Ivan Zahariev
I completely agree that it will be best if there is only one ".svn" directory, because we can easily change its security policy to suit each one's needs. It seems that SVN 1.7 will resolve my current security concerns, so I guess I'll have to wait for its stable release. Until then I'll ei

RE: More strict file permissions for the administrative ".svn" directories

2010-01-15 Thread Bert Huijben
> -Original Message- > From: Ivan Zahariev [mailto:rrdt...@famzah.net] > Sent: vrijdag 15 januari 2010 7:46 > To: David Glasser > Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org > Subject: Re: More strict file permissions for the administrative ".svn" > directories > > > You can always "chgrp $COMMON_GRO