On Jul 17, 10:16 pm, Philip Martin wrote:
> "rupert.thurner" writes:
> > now it works ... and running it for 100'000 revisions slowly increases
> > #!/usr/bin/python
>
> > import svn.client
> > import svn.core
> > import svn.ra
>
> > pool = svn.core.Pool()
> > client = svn.client.create_context(p
Failed to build Revision: 1147719.
To start the discussion, I will refer to this blog article by Mark Phippard:
http://blogs.collab.net/subversion/2008/07/subversion-merg/
I found the article to be a good overview of the issues. I think that we
need help from Mark. On the other hand, I have seen that Mark sometimes
makes disc
Does it occur over neon, serf, or both?
rupert.thurner wrote on Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 12:55:53 -0700:
> On Jul 17, 8:04 pm, "rupert.thurner" wrote:
> > On Jul 17, 9:54 am, Philip Martin wrote:
> >
> > > "rupert.thurner" writes:
> > > > it seems that the python bindings leak memory, and there see
"rupert.thurner" writes:
> now it works ... and running it for 100'000 revisions slowly increases
> the memory. but the main problem seems to be replay. you have an
> example? i did not find anything in the test subversion testcases.
I don't understand: are you saying there is a problem in repla
On Jul 17, 8:04 pm, "rupert.thurner" wrote:
> On Jul 17, 9:54 am, Philip Martin wrote:
>
> > "rupert.thurner" writes:
> > > it seems that the python bindings leak memory, and there seems no test
> > > covering this?
>
> > It's possible. Please provide more details.
>
> the problem seems to be i
On Jul 17, 9:54 am, Philip Martin wrote:
> "rupert.thurner" writes:
> > it seems that the python bindings leak memory, and there seems no test
> > covering this?
>
> It's possible. Please provide more details.
the problem seems to be in svn_ra_replay and/or svn_ra_get_log. what i
tried to do is
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> We've already put time into beta1 for testing and signing.
> I'd say just post it and then start the beta2 (or RC1) train right away.
> The tarballs are always going to lag behind repository history.
>
> People who run these betas are volun
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 06:14:27AM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> Sure, but we haven't even released beta1 yet. I'm saying that we nuke
> it as "already not what we want to deliver".
>
> At the "beta" point, it seems that we'd really like to be much closer
> to reality. Alphas are pretty throw-away, b
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 06:04, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 05:20:25AM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
>> There have been quite a few changes merged into the 1.7.x branch. How
>> about nuking this tarball, and rolling a new one? We *know* this
>> tarball isn't what we'd like to delive
On Sun, Jul 17, 2011 at 05:20:25AM -0400, Greg Stein wrote:
> There have been quite a few changes merged into the 1.7.x branch. How
> about nuking this tarball, and rolling a new one? We *know* this
> tarball isn't what we'd like to deliver to users, so why should we
> bother posting it?
The point
There have been quite a few changes merged into the 1.7.x branch. How
about nuking this tarball, and rolling a new one? We *know* this
tarball isn't what we'd like to deliver to users, so why should we
bother posting it?
Cheers,
-g
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 16:29, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> All,
>
>
Wow. Talk about ironic.
On Sat, Jul 16, 2011 at 12:09, wrote:
> Author: arfrever
> Revision: 1145712
> Modified property: svn:log
>
> Modified: svn:log at Sat Jul 16 16:09:46 2011
> --
> --- svn:log (original)
> +++ svn:
"rupert.thurner" writes:
> it seems that the python bindings leak memory, and there seems no test
> covering this?
It's possible. Please provide more details.
--
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com
14 matches
Mail list logo
