On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 07:14, wrote:
>
> Author: rhuijben
> Date: Thu May 5 23:14:16 2011
> New Revision: 102
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=102&view=rev
> Log:
> Resolve issue #3314, by adding a similar copy source exist check for not
> present nodes as was added to the normal
All,
The next prerelease from the 1.7.x branch is now up for testing and
signing: 1.7.0-beta2. The magic revision is r1149440 (but a known bug
in the release scripts doesn't include that rev in the header file).
You can find the tarballs here:
http://people.apache.org/~hwright/svn/1.7.0-beta2/
T
On 07/21/2011 03:57 PM, Heather Grewar wrote:
> Hello,
>
> My name is Heather. I am a physiotherapist. I am in the process of
> converting my practice to a paperless one. I am wondering, in terms of
> electronic note-taking, if the SVN software could effectively function as an
> audit trail ie
Greg Stein wrote on Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 17:26:01 -0400:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 16:35, wrote:
> > Author: danielsh
> > Revision: 1149343
> > Modified property: svn:log
> >
> > Modified: svn:log at Thu Jul 21 20:35:02 2011
> >
Thanks for your input. I've changed the code to avoid apr_uri_parse()
before I saw your comments.
Greg Stein wrote on Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 17:26:27 -0400:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 16:54, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >...
> > This buildslave uses apr-util 1.2.12.
> >
> > I'm not sure what's going on h
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 16:54, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>...
> This buildslave uses apr-util 1.2.12.
>
> I'm not sure what's going on here; I'm guessing that older APR's don't parse
> the scheme the same way.
The only real change in that area is this r594624. That change was
released as part of apr-u
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 16:35, wrote:
> Author: danielsh
> Revision: 1149343
> Modified property: svn:log
>
> Modified: svn:log at Thu Jul 21 20:35:02 2011
> --
> --- svn:log (original)
> +++ svn:log Thu Jul 21 20:35:02 2
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 11:37, wrote:
>...
> +++ subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c Thu Jul 21 15:37:21 2011
>...
> @@ -8155,8 +8163,8 @@ remove_noop_subtree_ranges(const char *u
>
> APR_ARRAY_PUSH(log_targets, const char *) = "";
>
> - SVN_ERR(svn_ra_get_log2(ra_session, log_ta
Hello,
My name is Heather. I am a physiotherapist. I am in the process of
converting my practice to a paperless one. I am wondering, in terms of
electronic note-taking, if the SVN software could effectively function as an
audit trail ie. a trail of all changes to the electronic note could be
t
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:43:38PM +, build...@apache.org wrote:
> The Buildbot has detected a new failure on builder
> svn-debian-x64-32-shared-gcc while building ASF Buildbot.
> Full details are available at:
> http://ci.apache.org/builders/svn-debian-x64-32-shared-gcc/builds/5074
>
> Buil
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 6:53 AM, wrote:
> Author: philip
> Date: Thu Jul 21 10:53:15 2011
> New Revision: 1149105
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1149105&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix issue 3966, log_noop_revs in merge is far too slow.
>
> * subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c:
> (rangelist_merge
"roderich.sch...@googlemail.com"
writes:
> sorry for the late posting. Here are some minor build nits for people
> stuck
> with old versions of APR and Apache.
>
> - subversion/include/private/svn_dep_compat.h, line 72-73:
> APR_UINT64_C and APR_INT64_C don't exist in APR 0.9.x
I see APR_INT64
On 07/21/2011 04:37 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
> It would have been the SQLite used by post-commit rep-sharing that
> returned the error:
>
> http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2011-06/0523.shtml
>
> and as Daniel says the 1.6.16 server doesn't tell the client that the
> commit was successful.
>
> The
> -Original Message-
> From: lieven.govae...@gmail.com [mailto:lieven.govae...@gmail.com] On
> Behalf Of Lieven Govaerts
> Sent: donderdag 21 juli 2011 15:29
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1149116 - /subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS
>
> Ber
Hi,
sorry for the late posting. Here are some minor build nits for people
stuck
with old versions of APR and Apache.
- subversion/include/private/svn_dep_compat.h, line 72-73:
APR_UINT64_C and APR_INT64_C don't exist in APR 0.9.x
possible fix (at least for people with a moderately recent C
c
Bert,
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: l...@apache.org [mailto:l...@apache.org]
>> Sent: donderdag 21 juli 2011 13:08
>> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: svn commit: r1149116 - /subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS
>>
>> Auth
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:09, Philip Martin wrote:
> Greg Stein writes:
>
>>> The first thing I tried leaks memory:
>>> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3967
>>
>> Are you suggesting that my fix for 3888 caused this problem, or is
>> incorrect in some way? Or is this a new, di
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 08:04, Bert Huijben wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: l...@apache.org [mailto:l...@apache.org]
>> Sent: donderdag 21 juli 2011 13:08
>> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: svn commit: r1149116 - /subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS
>>
>> Author: lgo
>> Da
Greg Stein writes:
>> The first thing I tried leaks memory:
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3967
>
> Are you suggesting that my fix for 3888 caused this problem, or is
> incorrect in some way? Or is this a new, distinct, and undiscovered
> problem that you're bringing up?
> -Original Message-
> From: l...@apache.org [mailto:l...@apache.org]
> Sent: donderdag 21 juli 2011 13:08
> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r1149116 - /subversion/branches/1.7.x/STATUS
>
> Author: lgo
> Date: Thu Jul 21 11:07:44 2011
> New Revision: 1149116
>
>
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 7:47 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 19:51, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> It seems to me that the fixes Johan made for case-only renames (obviously
>> empowered by WC-NG) could be the sort of high-profile bugfix that merit a
>> mention in the release notes.
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 06:44, Philip Martin wrote:
> Greg Stein writes:
>...
>> Yup. It was listed as an issue for the 1.7.0 release. Now that it has
>> been fixed.. sure: it should be merged to 1.7.x, and we're good to go.
>
> Enable a whole bunch of new code, and then say "look no bug reported
Greg Stein writes:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 05:14, Justin Erenkrantz
> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> ... and tested and fixed. See the 1.7.x-issue3888 branch. It is
>>> nominated for backport.
>>
>> I just reviewed all of the related commits (including what
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 05:14, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> ... and tested and fixed. See the 1.7.x-issue3888 branch. It is
>> nominated for backport.
>
> I just reviewed all of the related commits (including what was
> committed before the bran
On Thu, Jul 21, 2011 at 7:09 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
> ... and tested and fixed. See the 1.7.x-issue3888 branch. It is
> nominated for backport.
I just reviewed all of the related commits (including what was
committed before the branch) - it looks good here and I added my +1 to
1.7.x/STATUS. Lots
"Daniel Shahaf" writes:
> Blair's "post-commit FS processing" work (aka: svn_fs_commit_txn()
> returns an error but also returns a non-SVN_INVALID_REVNUM revision
> number) was backported to 1.6.17, but is not in 1.6.16 which svn.a.o
> runs?
>
> grep -2w svn_fs_commit_txn
> https://svn.apache.org
26 matches
Mail list logo
