On 06/14/2011 08:25 PM, Konstantin Kolinko wrote:
> Looking at the mirrors.cgi script at
> /site/trunk/content/dyn/mirrors/mirrors.cgi at the above link, I
> think there is a bug there.
>
> There is the following code fragment in parse_mirrors():
>
> # Check if the requested Preferred mirror i
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 06:33:46 +0300:
> s...@apache.org wrote on Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 15:10:50 -:
> > + svn_stringbuf_appendcstr(buf, _("Local property value:\n"));
> > + if (mine_is_binary)
> > +svn_stringbuf_appendcstr(buf, _("Cannot display: property v
Could we just print a hex dump of the value?
s...@apache.org wrote on Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 15:10:50 -:
> Author: stsp
> Date: Tue Jun 14 15:10:50 2011
> New Revision: 1135635
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1135635&view=rev
> Log:
> * subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c
> (prop_conflict_
2011/6/15 Daniel Shahaf :
> Rainer Jung wrote on Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 22:25:35 +0200:
>> On 14.06.2011 20:47, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> > On 06/14/2011 09:15 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> >> On 06/14/2011 05:40 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>> >>> [ dropping infra from this bit, 'cause I believe it
Philip Martin writes:
> Johan Corveleyn writes:
>
>> Also, has anyone tested this on an NFS-working copy? Or CIFS?
>
> Working copy on NFS, Linux client and server.
>
> Checkout using 1.6:
> Elapsed: 96s CPU: 16s
>
> Upgrade using 1.7:
> Elapsed: 147s CPU: 21s
>
> Checkout using 1.7
> Elapsed:
Johan Corveleyn writes:
> Also, has anyone tested this on an NFS-working copy? Or CIFS?
Working copy on NFS, Linux client and server.
Checkout using 1.6:
Elapsed: 96s CPU: 16s
Upgrade using 1.7:
Elapsed: 147s CPU: 21s
Checkout using 1.7
Elapsed: 216s CPU: 26s
So upgrade is faster than check
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
Also, has anyone tested this on an NFS-working copy? Or
Dirk Thomas writes:
> +/* find the revision at which the node was deleted
> + and sets *REVISION_DELETED to that revision. */
> +static svn_error_t *
> +check_for_deleted_rev(svn_ra_session_t *ra_session,
> + const char *url_or_path,
> + svn_revnum_t pe
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 05:21:27PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
>> Hi Johan,
>>
>> it's been a while and I still haven't sent you my diff wish we briefly
>> touched on the Subversion hackathon.
Hi Neels, thanks for pursuing this further.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, has anyone tested this on an NFS-working copy? Or CIFS?
>>
>> AFAIK, no one is doing any performance testing o
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 00:33:59 +0200:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> >>
> >> Also, has anyone tested this on an NFS-working copy? Or CIFS?
> >
> > AFAIK, no one is doing any performance
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:41 AM, Philip Martin
> wrote:
>> Paul Burba writes:
>>
>>> No surprise that your checkouts are faster than mine given you are
>>> using a local mirror. What's puzzling me is why my upgrades are so
>>> much slower th
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 11:56 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>>
>> Also, has anyone tested this on an NFS-working copy? Or CIFS?
>
> AFAIK, no one is doing any performance testing on NFS or CIFS. I have
> repeatedly invited users to run the ben
I know everybody is quite busy due to the upcoming release.
But is there any chance that this patch - which improves svn log for forward
revision ranges - will make it into SVN before this and be part of 1.7.0?
Dirk
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 16:22:08 -0400:
> If anybody (ahem, Stefan Küng) is sitting on API improvements or
> requirements tracked solely in their heads, it's time to put them into the
> tracker. Please do not delay.
I've been intending to review some more of the cache API
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Neels J Hofmeyr]
>> it's been a while and I still haven't sent you my diff wish we briefly
>> touched on the Subversion hackathon.
>
> While we're on the subject of 'diff wish', my wish is that diff3 could
> remove lines from the top and
Rainer Jung wrote on Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 22:25:35 +0200:
> On 14.06.2011 20:47, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > On 06/14/2011 09:15 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> >> On 06/14/2011 05:40 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> >>> [ dropping infra from this bit, 'cause I believe it to be a local issue. ]
> >>>
>
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>
> Also, has anyone tested this on an NFS-working copy? Or CIFS?
AFAIK, no one is doing any performance testing on NFS or CIFS. I have
repeatedly invited users to run the benchmarks I wrote in this
configuration but no one has bothered. Th
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:45 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:41 AM, Philip Martin
> wrote:
>> Paul Burba writes:
>>
>>> No surprise that your checkouts are faster than mine given you are
>>> using a local mirror. What's puzzling me is why my upgrades are so
>>> much slower tha
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Morten Kloster wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Morten Kloster wrote:
>>>
> []
>>> Here's an updated patch based on the current HEAD, and with
>>> one or two minor improvements. While, as stated,
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 8:22 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Our 1.7.0 blocking issues collection currently looks like so:
>
> 3875 Serf SEGV in pool handling on error
> 3888 ra_serf unbound memory usage on checkout/export/update
> 3899 Auto-resolve conflicts at wc-wc copy/move destination
On 14.06.2011 20:47, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 06/14/2011 09:15 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> On 06/14/2011 05:40 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>>> [ dropping infra from this bit, 'cause I believe it to be a local issue. ]
>>>
>>> In trying to debug a problem with our download page, I noticed tha
Our 1.7.0 blocking issues collection currently looks like so:
3875Serf SEGV in pool handling on error
3888ra_serf unbound memory usage on checkout/export/update
3899Auto-resolve conflicts at wc-wc copy/move destination
3915upgrade should detect checksum mismatch
3917can't check
On 14 June 2011 19:47, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 06/14/2011 09:15 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> On 06/14/2011 05:40 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>>> [ dropping infra from this bit, 'cause I believe it to be a local issue. ]
>>>
>>> In trying to debug a problem with our download page, I noticed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 14 Jun 2011, at 21:05, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 06/14/2011 03:41 PM, sebb wrote:
>> Looks like the Change button just selects a random entry from the
>> list, rather than applying the selected entry.
>
> Yes, that's the apparent action. I
On 06/14/2011 03:41 PM, sebb wrote:
> Looks like the Change button just selects a random entry from the
> list, rather than applying the selected entry.
Yes, that's the apparent action. In reality, the default action is "select
a random mirror", so I suspect that this isn't so much the direct res
On 06/14/2011 09:15 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 06/14/2011 05:40 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>> [ dropping infra from this bit, 'cause I believe it to be a local issue. ]
>>
>> In trying to debug a problem with our download page, I noticed that it
>> appears we aren't respecting the Preferred q
On 03.06.2011 10:52, Julian Foad wrote:
Hi Stefan2 and others.
This patch simplifies code in RA-svn/marshal.c by using a single code
path to read both short and long strings efficiently. Using a single
code path is beneficial for test coverage.
It is an alternative to r1028352 which merg
[Neels J Hofmeyr]
> it's been a while and I still haven't sent you my diff wish we briefly
> touched on the Subversion hackathon.
While we're on the subject of 'diff wish', my wish is that diff3 could
remove lines from the top and bottom of a conflict region that are the
same on both "sides". Wh
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 05:21:27PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> Hi Johan,
>
> it's been a while and I still haven't sent you my diff wish we briefly
> touched on the Subversion hackathon.
>
> Here is a fabricated example of why I don't like diff to match empty lines:
> A couple of lines get rep
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 2:49 AM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:16 PM, Morten Kloster wrote:
>>
[]
>> Here's an updated patch based on the current HEAD, and with
>> one or two minor improvements. While, as stated, the patch
>> can give many-fold speed increases for ideal cases
On 06/14/2011 05:33 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> Do you know about patience diff?
> http://bramcohen.livejournal.com/73318.html
sounds pretty cool.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Stefan Küng writes:
> * create a repository with the attached dump
> * check out a working copy from trunk, named "rcwc"
>
> $ svn merge -r7:4 rcwc\main.c
> works ok. But now the second merge:
>
> $ svn merge -r7:2 rcwc\main.c
>
> svn asks now what to do with the conflict. To get the working copy
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:41 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Paul Burba writes:
>
>> No surprise that your checkouts are faster than mine given you are
>> using a local mirror. What's puzzling me is why my upgrades are so
>> much slower than yours.
>>
>> Running an upgrade of a trunk WC on my machine
vijay writes:
> I have attached a patch which tests whether the error message contains
> "500 Internal Server Error"(In case of ra_serf/ra_neon) or the "error
> text"(in case of ra_local).
Committed in r1135651. Thanks!
--
Philip
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 05:21:27PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> Hi Johan,
>
> it's been a while and I still haven't sent you my diff wish we briefly
> touched on the Subversion hackathon.
>
> Here is a fabricated example of why I don't like diff to match empty lines:
> A couple of lines get r
Hi Johan,
it's been a while and I still haven't sent you my diff wish we briefly
touched on the Subversion hackathon.
Here is a fabricated example of why I don't like diff to match empty lines:
[[[
Index: x
===
--- x (revision 1)
In the interests of continuing to refine our alpha releases (and our
release process), I'd like to cut 1.7.0-alpha2 either this Friday or
Monday. Next week is much less busy for me than last week, so I'm
hoping the delay from posting to release will be only a few days.
-Hyrum
On 06/14/2011 05:40 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> [ dropping infra from this bit, 'cause I believe it to be a local issue. ]
>
> In trying to debug a problem with our download page, I noticed that it
> appears we aren't respecting the Preferred query argument when
> selecting a mirror. For instance
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 10:16:46AM +, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> > On 14/06/2011 10:26, Tony Stevenson wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 09:21:48AM +, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> >>> We have asked them to use a different mirror, but several
On 14/06/2011 10:26, Tony Stevenson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 09:21:48AM +, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>> We have asked them to use a different mirror, but several of them (in
>> my own testing) appear to have the same problem. For a user
>> attempting to get source code, it can be a frustra
Hyrum,
Looks like that mirror is badly out of date. The subversion folder doesnt
exist.
http://apache.mirror.anlx.net/
Ask the user to select a different mirror.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 09:12:43AM +, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> Hi Infra!
>
> We received this message from a user earlier
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 09:21:48AM +, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> We have asked them to use a different mirror, but several of them (in
> my own testing) appear to have the same problem. For a user
> attempting to get source code, it can be a frustrating experience,
> which ultimately leads to adm
Hyrum K Wright wrote on Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 09:21:48 +:
> We have asked them to use a different mirror, but several of them (in
> my own testing) appear to have the same problem. For a user
> attempting to get source code, it can be a frustrating experience,
> which ultimately leads to admit
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Mark Thomas wrote:
> On 14/06/2011 10:26, Tony Stevenson wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 09:21:48AM +, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>>> We have asked them to use a different mirror, but several of them (in
>>> my own testing) appear to have the same problem. For a
[ dropping infra from this bit, 'cause I believe it to be a local issue. ]
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>...
> Another (possibly-related) problem occurs when attempting to change
> the mirror. The form submits, but the mirror doesn't change to the
> expected one.
In tr
We have asked them to use a different mirror, but several of them (in
my own testing) appear to have the same problem. For a user
attempting to get source code, it can be a frustrating experience,
which ultimately leads to admit defeat and walk away.
I guess my main point was: is there a way to o
Hi Infra!
We received this message from a user earlier today. As it is our
first release through the Apache mirroring system, I want to ensure
we're not goofing something up. We're using the standard mirroring
cgi script, with a template file largely copied from APR. Our
download page is here:
Paul Burba writes:
> No surprise that your checkouts are faster than mine given you are
> using a local mirror. What's puzzling me is why my upgrades are so
> much slower than yours.
>
> Running an upgrade of a trunk WC on my machine under xperf takes
> 00:03:46.351 elapsed and 11.44s CPU time u
49 matches
Mail list logo
