The documentation for this struct has the following statement in it:
[[[
Same as svn_wc_status3_t, but without the svn_boolean_t 'versioned'
field. Instead an item that is not versioned has the 'entry' field set
to NULL.
]]]
However, svn_wc_status2_t is drastically different from
svn_wc_status3_t
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> I thought we did not have a deps package with the 1.7.x releases?
Nevermind then. :D
On 09/27/2012 01:24 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> If it compiles, links, and loads, then you should be just fine. I don't
>> believe there are semantic changes within any given entrypoint.
>
> Are there any objections to shipping serf-1.1.0 with our
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>> If it compiles, links, and loads, then you should be just fine. I don't
>> believe there are semantic changes within any given entrypoint.
>
> Are there any objections to shipping serf-1.1.0
On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 6:06 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> If it compiles, links, and loads, then you should be just fine. I don't
> believe there are semantic changes within any given entrypoint.
Are there any objections to shipping serf-1.1.0 with our deps package
going forward? Based on what Greg s
Currently, we set the moved-here flag in NODES on the op-root
of a move and on all of its children.
Philip and I want to change that in order to eventually handle moves
in mixed-revision working copies better, because we cannot mark
every node inside a mixed-revision tree as "moved-here" since nod
Hi all,
In contrast to my initial expectation, the changes
on the 10Gb branch went smoothly. The code is
also much cleaner and better integrated than my
original prototype. Lots of the limitations that came
with it could be eliminated as well.
Therefore, I decided to merge the "internal" changes
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 04:44:36AM +0530, vijay wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 September 2012 03:19 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 03:52:57AM +0530, vijay wrote:
> >>Attaching the patch and log message to fix this issue.
> >>
> >>Thanks & Regards,
> >>Vijayaguru
> >>
> >>[1] http:/
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 4:28 PM, wrote:
> > Author: stefan2
> > Date: Wed Sep 26 12:28:26 2012
> > New Revision: 1390435
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1390435&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Merge first batch of changes from the 10Gb b
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> stef...@apache.org writes:
>
> > Author: stefan2
> > Date: Wed Sep 26 16:56:58 2012
> > New Revision: 1390601
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1390601&view=rev
> > Log:
> > Some clients, e.g. our JAVA tests, indirectly allocate
stef...@apache.org writes:
> Author: stefan2
> Date: Wed Sep 26 16:56:58 2012
> New Revision: 1390601
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1390601&view=rev
> Log:
> Some clients, e.g. our JAVA tests, indirectly allocate DAG nodes in pools
> that live longer than the corresponding FS pool. Th
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 06:19:10PM +0200, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> Although I agree that a general overview would be nice, given that the
> detailed info is easily available via:
> $ svn log --c 1390435
>
> maybe it would be easier to add these log messages (or a shortened
> version) to the commit
12 matches
Mail list logo
