Hi!
I continued the work on my issue.
It seems to be a memory allocation or over-writing problem.
There is the section (see between HEADER_TEXT and HEADER_TEXT OK)
where it calling representation_string, which has to generate the
'text: ...' string. I printed out the input parameters.
Later, ther
Hi,
This question came up during recent discussion about the
diff-optimizations-tokens branch [1]:
What are the known implementors of svn_diff_fns_t, the vtable of
svn_diff callback functions in subversion/include/svn_diff.h? Besides
the internal diff_memory.c and diff_file.c that is.
Are there
[Daniel Becroft]
> I've just managed to build/install trunk on my ubuntu box at home (first
> application I've ever compiled on it - yey!).
>
> What debugging tools would you recommend to investigate this further? I've
> seen output posted that lists function names, and time spent on each.
The o
On 12/02/2010 04:55 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> 1.5.9 tarballs are up for testing and signing. The magic revision is
> r1041577:
> http://people.apache.org/~hwright/svn/1.5.9/
Summary:
+1 to release.
Platform:
Ubuntu 10.04 (lucid) Linux.
Tested:
1.5.9 tarball with local dependenci
Daniel Becroft wrote on Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 08:06:40 +1000:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Hyrum K. Wright <
> hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Daniel Becroft
> > wrote:
> > > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Philip Martin <
> > philip.mar...@wandisco.
On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 7:50 AM, Hyrum K. Wright <
hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Daniel Becroft
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Philip Martin <
> philip.mar...@wandisco.com>wrote:
> ...
> >> > I can't see any reason why all these files would ne
1.5.9 tarballs are up for testing and signing. The magic revision is r1041577:
http://people.apache.org/~hwright/svn/1.5.9/
To sign the release, please input your signatures using the script here:
http://work.hyrumwright.org/pub/svn/collect_sigs.py
(The script worked pretty well for 1.6.15, but
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Daniel Becroft wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Philip Martin
> wrote:
...
>> > I can't see any reason why all these files would need to be accessed. I
>> seem
>> > to recall some discussion about preventing/warning merging into modified
>> > working copies
On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
> Daniel Becroft writes:
>
> > Under 1.7.x, the following file(s) are accessed (merging the same
> revision
> > as above):
> >
> > - .svn\wc.db
> > - Every versioned file in the working copy
>
> What does "accessed" mean? stat(), open(), rea
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 21:21:20 +0100:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Bill Tutt wrote:
> > If tokens include keyword expansion operations then stop once you
> > hit one. The possible source of bugs outways the perf gain in my mind
> > here.
>
> Haven't thought about k
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 06:29:06PM -0500, Dan Engel wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 14:08 +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > However, I still see a potential risk here because the name
> > "gpg-agent"
> > is very misleading. It violates the principle of least surprise.
> > How can we prevent users mi
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Bill Tutt wrote:
> Note: This email only tangentially relates to svn diff and more about
> reverse token scanning in general:
>
> As someone who has implemented suffix reverse token scanning before:
Thanks for the input. It's nice to see other people have also
stru
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> Hi Johan.
>
> I've just read the whole of this thread.
>
> I didn't quite understand your original point (2) that "token-based
> suffix scanning will not be as fast as byte-based suffix scanning".
> Sure it won't, but is there any reason you men
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:06 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 12/02/2010 01:11 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> On 12/01/2010 02:14 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>> 1.5.8 tarballs are up for testing and signing. The magic revision is
>>> r1041089:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hwright/svn/1.5.8/
>>
On 12/02/2010 12:18 PM, Bill Tutt wrote:
[...]
. o O ( Who the heck is this Bill Tutt guy? )
Nice to read you again, Bill!
--
C. Michael Pilato
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Note: This email only tangentially relates to svn diff and more about
reverse token scanning in general:
As someone who has implemented suffix reverse token scanning before:
* It simply isn't possible in DBCS code pages. Stick to byte only here.
SBCS and UTF-16 make reverse token stuff relativ
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 08:54:35AM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 12/02/2010 07:38 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > You need to use serf 0.3.x with Subversion 1.5.
> > Subversion 1.6.x includes changes to make it compatible with newer serf
> > versions, but those haven't been merged to 1.5.x.
>
Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 15:59:34 +:
> On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 17:40 +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 15:34:48 +:
> > > First step: this patch fixes the comments. Good to commit?
> > >
> > > [[[
> > > Index: subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/f
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 17:40 +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 15:34:48 +:
> > First step: this patch fixes the comments. Good to commit?
> >
> > [[[
> > Index: subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c
> > ===
Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 15:34:48 +:
> First step: this patch fixes the comments. Good to commit?
>
> [[[
> Index: subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c
> ===
> --- subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/fs_fs.c (revision 1041350)
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 14:33:19 +:
> > I note that the following comment in pack_shard() is not quite right:
> >
> > /* Update the min-unpacked-rev file to reflect our newly packed shard.
> >* (ffd->min_unpacked_rev will be updated by open_pack_o
Hi Johan.
I've just read the whole of this thread.
I didn't quite understand your original point (2) that "token-based
suffix scanning will not be as fast as byte-based suffix scanning".
Sure it won't, but is there any reason you mentioned suffix scanning
there specifically? The same is true of
Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 14:33:19 +:
> On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 14:56 +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 12:15:19 +:
> > > Remove the re-try logic from svn_fs_fs__path_rev_absolute(). Since
> > > r1040832, all its callers correctly accou
On 12/02/2010 01:11 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 12/01/2010 02:14 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> 1.5.8 tarballs are up for testing and signing. The magic revision is
>> r1041089:
>> http://people.apache.org/~hwright/svn/1.5.8/
>
> Summary:
>
>+0 to release, pending review of the ra_serf
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:57 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Stefan Sperling writes:
>
>> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 01:14:30PM -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>> 1.5.8 tarballs are up for testing and signing. The magic revision is
>>> r1041089:
>>> http://people.apache.org/~hwright/svn/1.5.8/
>>
>> 1.5.
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 14:56 +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 12:15:19 +:
> > Remove the re-try logic from svn_fs_fs__path_rev_absolute(). Since
> > r1040832, all its callers correctly account for the possibility of an
> > out-of-date result due to a concu
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 14:59:23 +0100:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 13:34:48 +0100:
> >> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Daniel Shahaf
> >> wrote:
> >> > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010
On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:43 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> [ finally getting back to this mail; having slept on it, etc. ]
>
> Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 13:34:48 +0100:
>> On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Daniel Shahaf
>> wrote:
>> > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at
Stefan Sperling writes:
> On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 01:14:30PM -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> 1.5.8 tarballs are up for testing and signing. The magic revision is
>> r1041089:
>> http://people.apache.org/~hwright/svn/1.5.8/
>
> 1.5.8 is missing the critial blame -g server-side memory leak crash
On 12/02/2010 07:38 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> You need to use serf 0.3.x with Subversion 1.5.
> Subversion 1.6.x includes changes to make it compatible with newer serf
> versions, but those haven't been merged to 1.5.x.
> 1.5.x works fine with serf 0.3.x.
Great, thanks. Now, if we wind up roll
On Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 01:14:30PM -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> 1.5.8 tarballs are up for testing and signing. The magic revision is
> r1041089:
> http://people.apache.org/~hwright/svn/1.5.8/
1.5.8 is missing the critial blame -g server-side memory leak crash fix.
The trunk revisions merge cl
Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 12:15:19 +:
> On Wed, 2010-12-01, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Julian Foad wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 12:32:45 +:
> > > (2) Doesn't the exact same race exist in *all* uses of
> > > svn_fs_fs__path_rev_absolute()? There are five other calls to it,
>
On Thu, Dec 02, 2010 at 01:11:44AM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 12/01/2010 02:14 PM, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> > 1.5.8 tarballs are up for testing and signing. The magic revision is
> > r1041089:
> > http://people.apache.org/~hwright/svn/1.5.8/
>
> Summary:
>
>+0 to release, pending
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 13:58 +0530, Noorul Islam K M wrote:
> Julian Foad writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 18:42 +0530, Noorul Islam K M wrote:
> >
> >> Julian Foad writes:
> >>
> >> > I tried some potentially invalid inputs to "svn" a week or two ago and
> >> > made notes on what I found. J
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 14:05 +0530, Noorul Islam K M wrote:
> Julian Foad writes:
>
> > I tried some potentially invalid inputs to "svn" a week or two ago and
> > made notes on what I found. Just posting here in case anyone wants to
> > do something about one or more of them.
> >
> > Noorul, I'm
On Wed, 2010-12-01, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 12:32:45 +:
> > On Wed, 2010-12-01, stef...@apache.org wrote:
> > > Port (not merge) a fix for a FSFS packing race condition from the
> > > performance branch to /trunk: There is a slight time window
> > > bet
On Thu, 2010-12-02, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> julianf...@apache.org wrote on Wed, Dec 01, 2010 at 17:44:50 -:
> > -/** Copy file @a file from location @a src_path to location @a dest_path.
> > - * Use @a pool for memory allocations.
> > +/** Copy the file whose basename or relative path is @a file
Hi Stefan2.
A good test for whether it's worth making an API accept NULL as an input
is: what proportion of the callers would find that useful? I see there
are about 40 callers in the code base. Would you mind scanning through
them and letting us know?
- Julian
On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 07:51 +02
On Wed, 2010-12-01, Blair Zajac wrote:
> On 12/1/10 4:38 PM, stef...@apache.org wrote:
> > Author: stefan2
> > Date: Thu Dec 2 00:38:17 2010
> > New Revision: 1041230
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1041230&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Fix the svn_checksum_to_cstring() docstring to actually
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> > Julian Foad writes:
> >
> > > I imagine it should be possible to add 'NOT NULL' to these columns
> > > without performing a format bump or writing any upgrade code. Am I
> > > right?
>
> Hyrum Wright wrote:
> > If we're already enforcing it in the C code, I see no pro
Julian Foad writes:
> I tried some potentially invalid inputs to "svn" a week or two ago and
> made notes on what I found. Just posting here in case anyone wants to
> do something about one or more of them.
>
> Noorul, I'm including you in the "To" addresses because you said you
> were looking f
Julian Foad writes:
> On Tue, 2010-11-30 at 18:42 +0530, Noorul Islam K M wrote:
>
>> Julian Foad writes:
>>
>> > I tried some potentially invalid inputs to "svn" a week or two ago and
>> > made notes on what I found. Just posting here in case anyone wants to
>> > do something about one or mor
Noorul Islam K M writes:
> When I was trying to come up with a patch for issue 3713, I observed the
> following.
>
> For example I have two files 1.txt and 2.txt in a repository located at
> file:///tmp/testrepo
>
> svn cat behaves differently for local paths and URLs. See the
> illustration belo
43 matches
Mail list logo
