Hello Hyrum,
Am Dienstag, den 23.08.2011, 09:23 -0500 schrieb Hyrum K Wright:
> Martin,
> After discussion with some other devs on IRC (#svn-dev on Freenode,
> come and join us!),
unfortunately no way, got only browser access to the internet during
working hours
> I committed r1160705 which shoul
On Monday 22 August 2011 09:37 AM, Prabhu Gnana Sundar wrote:
On Thursday 18 August 2011 06:46 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
I tried your patch against
https://svn.eu.apache.org/repos/asf/subversion/README
(which uses a non-self-signed cert, but rather one for which the cert's
hostname differs from
I discovered today that the network traffic generated by my rewrite of
"diff --summarize" is ridiculously heavy - like apparently 100 times
what it was, in a simple real-world test. I have an obvious patch which
I'll apply soon which eliminates the requests for content of deleted
files, and that r
Hyrum K Wright wrote on Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 09:55:53 -0500:
> Does something stop working for you if the branch is reintergrated?
>
No.
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 8:44 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Hyrum K Wright wrote on Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 08:29:59 -0500:
>> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Daniel Shahaf
>> wrote:
>> > Paul Querna --- who wrote the initial revprop packing patch (the f5 one,
>> > which has been reverted) --- mention
Hyrum K Wright wrote on Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 08:29:59 -0500:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
> > Paul Querna --- who wrote the initial revprop packing patch (the f5 one,
> > which has been reverted) --- mentions that his use case for revprop
> > packing has vanished due
On 08/25/2011 09:29 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
>> Paul Querna --- who wrote the initial revprop packing patch (the f5 one,
>> which has been reverted) --- mentions that his use case for revprop
>> packing has vanished due to hardware upgrad
On Thu, Aug 25, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Paul Querna --- who wrote the initial revprop packing patch (the f5 one,
> which has been reverted) --- mentions that his use case for revprop
> packing has vanished due to hardware upgrades (acquiring SSD l2arc
> disks).
Not everybody has a
On 08/24/2011 04:36 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Neels J Hofmeyr wrote on Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 22:04:11 +0200:
>> On 08/24/2011 04:01 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> Neels J Hofmeyr wrote on Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 15:32:20 +0200:
Changelists have been *designed* in the flipped-over wrong-way-round: t
> On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 07:42 -0400, 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote:
> > Are you refering to sole Kerberos or are you just concerned about
> > transport encryption? Your statement somewhat irritates me.
> > Given that the HTTP traffic cannot be securely wrapped into the GSS
> > content and nor the SASL Q
Paul Querna --- who wrote the initial revprop packing patch (the f5 one,
which has been reverted) --- mentions that his use case for revprop
packing has vanished due to hardware upgrades (acquiring SSD l2arc
disks).
With that in mind, what's the fate of the (flat files -based)
'revprop-packing' br
On Wed, 2011-08-24 at 07:42 -0400, 1983-01...@gmx.net wrote:
> Are you refering to sole Kerberos or are you just concerned about
> transport encryption? Your statement somewhat irritates me.
> Given that the HTTP traffic cannot be securely wrapped into the GSS
> content and nor the SASL QOP can be
12 matches
Mail list logo
