Re: Format bump for 1.8?

2012-07-12 Thread Johan Corveleyn
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:56 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 22:19:50 +0200: >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Peter Samuelson wrote: >> > [Markus Schaber] >> >> So my personal experience tells me that multiple-client scenarios are >> >> the common case

Re: Format bump for 1.8?

2012-07-12 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 22:19:50 +0200: > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Peter Samuelson wrote: > > [Markus Schaber] > >> So my personal experience tells me that multiple-client scenarios are > >> the common case, and that the deployment strategy (only using linux > >> dist

RE: Format bump for 1.8?

2012-07-12 Thread Bert Huijben
> -Original Message- > From: Peter Samuelson [mailto:pe...@p12n.org] > Sent: donderdag 12 juli 2012 19:31 > To: Markus Schaber > Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org > Subject: Re: Format bump for 1.8? > > > [Markus Schaber] > > So my personal experience tells me that multiple-client scenarios

Avoiding multiple library copies on a system

2012-07-12 Thread Peter Samuelson
Reposting under a new thread + subject line, at Daniel's suggestion. [Markus Schaber] > So my personal experience tells me that multiple-client scenarios are > the common case, and that the deployment strategy (only using linux > distro packages, or 3-in-1 bundles like VisualSVN) can reduce that

Re: Format bump for 1.8?

2012-07-12 Thread Johan Corveleyn
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Peter Samuelson wrote: > [Markus Schaber] >> So my personal experience tells me that multiple-client scenarios are >> the common case, and that the deployment strategy (only using linux >> distro packages, or 3-in-1 bundles like VisualSVN) can reduce that >> proble

Re: Format bump for 1.8?

2012-07-12 Thread Peter Samuelson
[Markus Schaber] > So my personal experience tells me that multiple-client scenarios are > the common case, and that the deployment strategy (only using linux > distro packages, or 3-in-1 bundles like VisualSVN) can reduce that > problem. So, we provide a pile of libraries that maintain ABI backw

Re: Incidence of criss-cross merges

2012-07-12 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > > In Berlin, Julian raised the question how relevant the criss-cross > > merge case actually. I think I found a reasonable merge policy > > where those cases become the norm rather than an exception. > > > > Most people

Re: Incidence of criss-cross merges

2012-07-12 Thread Julian Foad
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > In Berlin, Julian raised the question how relevant the criss-cross > merge case actually. I think I found a reasonable merge policy > where those cases become the norm rather than an exception. > > Most people seem to do what one might call "unqualified" catch-up > merges,

Incidence of criss-cross merges

2012-07-12 Thread Stefan Fuhrmann
Hi all, In Berlin, Julian raised the question how relevant the criss-cross merge case actually. I think I found a reasonable merge policy where those cases become the norm rather than an exception. Most people seem to do what one might call "unqualified" catch-up merges, i.e. "merge everything up

Re: Format bump for 1.8?

2012-07-12 Thread Philip Martin
Philip Martin writes: > "Bert Huijben" writes: > >> Are there any other changes waiting for a format bump right now? > > What about the index changes I made in r1002793? We should probably > arrange for those to get applied to 1.7 working copies. Oops! Those are already in 1.7. -- Cerified &

Re: Format bump for 1.8?

2012-07-12 Thread Philip Martin
"Bert Huijben" writes: > Are there any other changes waiting for a format bump right now? What about the index changes I made in r1002793? We should probably arrange for those to get applied to 1.7 working copies. Some of the other indices could be made UNIQUE--perhaps the format bump should d