On Aug 31, 2011 1:38 PM, "Mark Phippard" wrote:
>...
> I *think* we should do these additional items, but the only thing I
> *care* about is that on this list you give us the best heads up you
> can as to your plans. Sorry if you thought I was asking for something
> else.
He just did that.
Hyru
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 03:25:18PM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> > In reading through this, as well as the discussion in IRC, I'm once
> > again wondering why we're bolting this stuff onto the outside of FSFS
> > rather than rethinking the entire FS problem (along with things like
> > obliterat
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 12:43:29PM +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> I'll try to tweak my proposal such that successor ID updates become
> transactional and happen as part of every commit.
Here's a first shot at this. Comments welcome.
To support transactional semantics, any new data written to the
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:35:00PM +0200, Stephen Butler wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Is anyone else seeing the following test failures on trunk?
>
> At least one test FAILED, checking
> /Users/steve/dev/unix-build/svn-trunk/tests.log
> FAIL: lock_tests.py 10: verify svn:needs-lock behavior with defu
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> Fixed in r1163704 (plus fat-finger follow-ups r1163707 and r1163711).
>
> static svn_error_t *
> absent_file(const char *path,
> void *parent_baton,
> apr_pool_t *pool)
> {
> struct dir_baton *pb = parent_baton;
>
> /* ### This 'join ... basena
I (Julian Foad) wrote:
> Philip Martin wrote:
> > "Bert Huijben" writes:
> >
> > > This patch causes merge_authz_tests.py 1 "skipped paths get overriding
> > > mergeinfo" to fail on ra_serf. (See the svn-slik-w2k3-x64-ra
> > > buildbot).
> >
> > It also fails on Linux with serf.
>
> I'm looking
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 4:35 PM, Stephen Butler wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Is anyone else seeing the following test failures on trunk?
>
> At least one test FAILED, checking
> /Users/steve/dev/unix-build/svn-trunk/tests.log
> FAIL: lock_tests.py 10: verify svn:needs-lock behavior with defunct lock
>
Hi folks,
Is anyone else seeing the following test failures on trunk?
At least one test FAILED, checking
/Users/steve/dev/unix-build/svn-trunk/tests.log
FAIL: lock_tests.py 10: verify svn:needs-lock behavior with defunct lock
FAIL: lock_tests.py 15: verify status of stolen lock
FAIL: lock_tes
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 1:20 PM, Hyrum K Wright
wrote:
>> Is there any reason we cannot simply be public about the forecasted date if
>> this RC holds up?
>
> This mailing list *is* public. If folks are really interested, they
> (or their lackeys) can hit up the archives and perform their own
>
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 11:44 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Hyrum K Wright
> wrote:
>
>>
>> As for a specific date, I'm hesitant to commit to something. While I
>> certainly appreciate the utility, my crystal ball just isn't that
>> clear. I guess it boils down to
I'm happy to announce the release of Apache Subversion 1.7.0-rc2, the
first public release candidate of Subversion 1.7.0. Please choose the
mirror closest to you by visiting:
http://subversion.apache.org/download/#pre-releases
The SHA1 checksums are:
691fd19a88908b10f4a96cbbd930ed359543
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:51 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Can't we assume that the date for the GA release is whatever the
> release-process.html page documents it to be --- ie, date of the RC plus
> four weeks plus or minus however the
> package-the-tarball-that-doesn't-have-rcN-in-svn_version.h p
Can't we assume that the date for the GA release is whatever the
release-process.html page documents it to be --- ie, date of the RC plus four
weeks plus or minus however the
package-the-tarball-that-doesn't-have-rcN-in-svn_version.h process works ---
unless the RM says otherwise on dev@?
On W
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 12:31 PM, Hyrum K Wright
wrote:
> As for a specific date, I'm hesitant to commit to something. While I
> certainly appreciate the utility, my crystal ball just isn't that
> clear. I guess it boils down to the fact that I've been telling
> people my guess about 1.7's rele
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Hyrum K Wright
> wrote:
>>
>> There will be a little bit of delay by the mirroring system, but Mike
>> and I were discussing the possibility of releasing before the mirrors
>> have caught up and just warning
Philip Martin wrote:
> "Bert Huijben" writes:
>
> > This patch causes merge_authz_tests.py 1 "skipped paths get overriding
> > mergeinfo" to fail on ra_serf. (See the svn-slik-w2k3-x64-ra
> > buildbot).
>
> It also fails on Linux with serf.
I'm looking into this now.
- Julian
"Bert Huijben" writes:
> This patch causes merge_authz_tests.py 1 "skipped paths get overriding
> mergeinfo" to fail on ra_serf. (See the svn-slik-w2k3-x64-ra
> buildbot).
It also fails on Linux with serf.
--
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 10:17 AM, Hyrum K Wright
wrote:
>
> There will be a little bit of delay by the mirroring system, but Mike
> and I were discussing the possibility of releasing before the mirrors
> have caught up and just warning our users of this fact in the release
> announcement. That wo
On 08/31/2011 10:17 AM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> There will be a little bit of delay by the mirroring system, but Mike
> and I were discussing the possibility of releasing before the mirrors
> have caught up and just warning our users of this fact in the release
> announcement. That would compress
> -Original Message-
> From: julianf...@apache.org [mailto:julianf...@apache.org]
> Sent: dinsdag 30 augustus 2011 19:23
> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r1163296 - in
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_client: client.h diff.c merge.c
> repos_diff.c
>
> Autho
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 8:57 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Hyrum K Wright
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> > I would like to see us maintain a projected release date for 1.7 once we
>> > have moved to the RC phase. Most likel
On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 10:42 AM, Hyrum K Wright
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 17, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> > I would like to see us maintain a projected release date for 1.7 once we
> > have moved to the RC phase. Most likely place to put it would be here:
> > http://subversion.apache.org
On Tue, Aug 30, 2011 at 8:17 PM, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> On 08/30/2011 06:34 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>> In reading through this, as well as the discussion in IRC, I'm once
>> again wondering why we're bolting this stuff onto the outside of FSFS
>> rather than rethinking the entire FS problem (a
On Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 7:18 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 18:00 +0100, Philip Martin wrote:
> > Paul Burba writes:
> >
> > > Could you provide some examples of when 'things start to go wrong when
> > > you next try to use "automatic" merges between the branches'? Was
> > > ther
Julian Foad writes:
> The only new thing
> that I think we want here is the ability to record 'We don't have change
> C' when C is in our own history; where currently we always assume that
> we DO have each such change.
>
>
>> #!/bin/sh -e
>>
>> svn=svn ; svnadmin=svnadmin ; svnlook=svnlook ; sv
Hi,
Von: Julian Foad [mailto:julian.f...@wandisco.com]
>
> But then I realized that's totally unnecessary. We don't need and
> shouldn't even attempt to record anything other than 'We have change C'
> or 'We don't have change C', for each change 'C'. The only new thing that
> I think we want he
On Tue, 2011-08-30 at 18:00 +0100, Philip Martin wrote:
> Paul Burba writes:
>
> > Could you provide some examples of when 'things start to go wrong when
> > you next try to use "automatic" merges between the branches'? Was
> > there a particular use-case (or cases) you had in mind, or just a
>
Neels J Hofmeyr wrote on Wed, Aug 31, 2011 at 03:17:26 +0200:
> On 08/30/2011 06:34 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> > In reading through this, as well as the discussion in IRC, I'm once
> > again wondering why we're bolting this stuff onto the outside of FSFS
> > rather than rethinking the entire FS pr
On Tue, 2011-08-30, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 08/30/2011 12:34 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> >> There is at most one successor on the same line of history (same copy_id).
> >> Each copy operation also creates one new successor.
> >
> > I think we need to be bit more clear about when a successo
Johan Corveleyn writes:
> If this is really the cause, does that
> mean that it's a problem for Subversion, or that it's more of a
> test-suite problem (that it should sleep some time to make sure the
> timestamps differ, or something like that)?
It would be a test-suite problem. The test-suite
> -Original Message-
> From: Neels J Hofmeyr [mailto:ne...@elego.de]
> Sent: woensdag 31 augustus 2011 4:17
> To: Subversion Development
> Subject: 1.7 fix necessary? file externals in unversioned subdirs
>
> Ran a test that puts a file external inside an unversioned subdir. As soon
> as
31 matches
Mail list logo
