Re: svn commit: r1351822 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_client/switch.c

On Jun 19, 2012 9:52 PM, wrote: >... > + if (resolve_conflicts_post_switch) > +{ > + /* Remove the conflict resolution callback from the client context. > + * We invoke it after of the switch instead of during the switch. */ > + conflict_func2 = ctx->conflict_func2; > + c

Re: Bigger --deltas dump with 1.7.5 than with 1.6.17

On 2012-06-19 19:41:51 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > I assume that the binary svndiff chunks are different, right? Yes, the binary svndiff chunks are different and have the declared size. But why is 1.6.17 better than 1.7.5? -- Vincent Lefèvre - Web: 100% accessible val

Re: Bigger --deltas dump with 1.7.5 than with 1.6.17

I assume that the binary svndiff chunks are different, right? Otherwise, one of the two dumpfiles should fail to load. Vincent Lefevre wrote on Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 18:04:28 +0200: > After comparing two dumps of the same repository, one obtained > with Subversion 1.6.17 and one obtained with 1.7.5

Re: [PATCH]: Add 'replaced' value to ConflictDescriptor.Reason

On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 09:10:41PM +0200, Dmitry Pavlenko wrote: > Hi, > > enum svn_wc_conflict_reason_t has 10 possible values but > ConflictDescriptor.Reason from javahl only 6; > as I understand this is because some of svn_wc_conflict_reason_t values are > "experimental" (for 1.8); > but anyw

Bigger --deltas dump with 1.7.5 than with 1.6.17

After comparing two dumps of the same repository, one obtained with Subversion 1.6.17 and one obtained with 1.7.5, both with --incremental --deltas (both from revision 0, but not with the same upper revision), I've noticed two changes: 1. The properties are reordered (that was expected after the c

RE: svn commit: r1351717 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf: ra_serf.h serf.c

> -Original Message- > From: rhuij...@apache.org [mailto:rhuij...@apache.org] > Sent: dinsdag 19 juni 2012 15:55 > To: comm...@subversion.apache.org > Subject: svn commit: r1351717 - in > /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_ra_serf: ra_serf.h serf.c > > Author: rhuijben > Date: Tue Jun 1

Re: incorrect Last Changed Rev after upgrade from 1.6.17 to 1.7.5

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:37:06PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > Well, not all copy events should be affected. For instance, if a file > is moved from a directory to another one, this should be shown in the > log. Here what is copied is not the file itself, but the directory > above it. True. An

Re: incorrect Last Changed Rev after upgrade from 1.6.17 to 1.7.5

On 2012-06-19 11:53:37 +0200, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 09:46:20AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > On 2012-06-19 01:29:18 -0400, Greg Stein wrote: > > > In 1.6, we erroneously used the containing directory's revision for the > > > file in certain cases. 1.7 is correct: the

Re: incorrect Last Changed Rev after upgrade from 1.6.17 to 1.7.5

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 09:46:20AM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2012-06-19 01:29:18 -0400, Greg Stein wrote: > > In 1.6, we erroneously used the containing directory's revision for the > > file in certain cases. 1.7 is correct: the file is not changed until r4. > > Maybe the directory has, bu

Re: incorrect Last Changed Rev after upgrade from 1.6.17 to 1.7.5

On 2012-06-19 01:29:18 -0400, Greg Stein wrote: > In 1.6, we erroneously used the containing directory's revision for the > file in certain cases. 1.7 is correct: the file is not changed until r4. > Maybe the directory has, but that is independent of the file. But in this case, is it normal that r