[RFC] Deprecate Berkelety DB filesystem backend

For the following reasons * FSFS has been the default filesystem backend for almost 7 years, since 1.2. * Looking at commit history, I've not seen a single (functional or performance) improvement, beyond a few bug fixes, in the BDB backend in at least two years. The last significa

RE: Regarding issue #3348 ("Provide syntax which means 'include all files *not* in a changelist'")

> -Original Message- > From: C. Michael Pilato [mailto:cmpil...@collab.net] > Sent: vrijdag 4 januari 2013 23:30 > To: Julian Foad > Cc: Daniel Shahaf; Subversion Development > Subject: Re: Regarding issue #3348 ("Provide syntax which means 'include all > files *not* in a changelist'") >

Re: Regarding issue #3348 ("Provide syntax which means 'include all files *not* in a changelist'")

Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 22:54:47 +0100: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 04:25:07PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > > On 01/04/2013 03:57 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > > Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 19:31:20 +0100: > > >> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:23:28PM -0500, C.

Re: Regarding issue #3348 ("Provide syntax which means 'include all files *not* in a changelist'")

On 04.01.2013 23:44, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 05:29:30PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >>"--cl=none" -- introduces a reserved changelist name "none" that >> someone, somewhere might already be really using. > Is this really a problem? > > We're bumpin

Re: Regarding issue #3348 ("Provide syntax which means 'include all files *not* in a changelist'")

On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 05:29:30PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >"--cl=none" -- introduces a reserved changelist name "none" that > someone, somewhere might already be really using. Is this really a problem? We're bumping the working copy format anyway for 1.8, so the new

Re: Regarding issue #3348 ("Provide syntax which means 'include all files *not* in a changelist'")

On 01/04/2013 05:10 PM, Julian Foad wrote: > On the other hand it does have some uses ("show me all the local mods > that I haven't assigned to any changelist", "assign them all to a named > changelist now"), and I consider the whole changelists feature to be a > very marginal bit of functionality

Re: Regarding issue #3348 ("Provide syntax which means 'include all files *not* in a changelist'")

On 01/04/2013 04:54 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 04:25:07PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >> On 01/04/2013 03:57 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >>> Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 19:31:20 +0100: On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:23:28PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrot

Re: Regarding issue #3348 ("Provide syntax which means 'include all files *not* in a changelist'")

Daniel Shahaf wrote: > C. Michael Pilato wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 16:25:07 -0500: >> >> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:23:28PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >> >>> Can anyone make an argument for me *not* to reintegrate my branch to >> trunk >> >>> for 1.8 release?  I need to code up some m

Re: Regarding issue #3348 ("Provide syntax which means 'include all files *not* in a changelist'")

On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 04:25:07PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > On 01/04/2013 03:57 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 19:31:20 +0100: > >> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:23:28PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > >>> Can anyone make an argument for me *not*

Re: Regarding issue #3348 ("Provide syntax which means 'include all files *not* in a changelist'")

On 01/04/2013 04:26 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > C. Michael Pilato wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 16:25:07 -0500: >> On 01/04/2013 03:57 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >>> Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 19:31:20 +0100: On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:23:28PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >>

Re: Regarding issue #3348 ("Provide syntax which means 'include all files *not* in a changelist'")

C. Michael Pilato wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 16:25:07 -0500: > On 01/04/2013 03:57 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 19:31:20 +0100: > >> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:23:28PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > >>> Can anyone make an argument for me *not* to

Re: Regarding issue #3348 ("Provide syntax which means 'include all files *not* in a changelist'")

On 01/04/2013 04:25 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > On 01/04/2013 03:57 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: >> Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 19:31:20 +0100: >>> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:23:28PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote: Can anyone make an argument for me *not* to reintegrate my bra

Re: Regarding issue #3348 ("Provide syntax which means 'include all files *not* in a changelist'")

On 01/04/2013 03:57 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 19:31:20 +0100: >> On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:23:28PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote: >>> Can anyone make an argument for me *not* to reintegrate my branch to trunk >>> for 1.8 release? I need to code up s

Re: Regarding issue #3348 ("Provide syntax which means 'include all files *not* in a changelist'")

Stefan Sperling wrote on Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 19:31:20 +0100: > On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:23:28PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > > Can anyone make an argument for me *not* to reintegrate my branch to trunk > > for 1.8 release? I need to code up some more regression tests for the --cl > > "" be

Re: 1.6.20 up for testing/signing

On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 12:54 PM, Ben Reser wrote: > The 1.6.20 release artifacts are now available for testing/signing. > Please get the tarballs from > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion > and add your signatures there. I plan to try and release on January > 4th so please try an

Re: The purpose of prepare_merge_props_changed()

The condition was originally added in r873100, following the discussion (mainly between Paul and me) at .   At that time, the "foreign repos" filtering was inside the function "filter_self_referential_mergeinfo", so

Re: Regarding issue #3348 ("Provide syntax which means 'include all files *not* in a changelist'")

On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 01:23:28PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote: > Can anyone make an argument for me *not* to reintegrate my branch to trunk > for 1.8 release? I need to code up some more regression tests for the --cl > "" behaviors, but I don't really want to invest that energy today if I know

Regarding issue #3348 ("Provide syntax which means 'include all files *not* in a changelist'")

Take a minute to read up on the history of issue #3348: http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3348 Okay. Thanks. As you've read, this issue has had gone back and forth a little bit. It took a while for us to settle on a UI approach that would work, but we ultimately decided in Ber

The purpose of prepare_merge_props_changed()

I'm trying to understand prepare_merge_props_changed().  I don't get why the stripping of self-referential and foreign-repos mergeingo is *not* performed when doing a reverse merge, as I highlight below.  Paul, can you shed any light on it? Index: subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c =

Re: svn commit: r1424469 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: libsvn_client/repos_diff.c tests/cmdline/merge_reintegrate_tests.py tests/cmdline/merge_tests.py tests/cmdline/merge_tree_conflict_tests.py

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 5:44 PM, Paul Burba wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 4:47 PM, Paul Burba wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Paul Burba wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM, Bert Huijben wrote: The problem is that I didn’t break real changes, but only changed the

RE: 1.8 Progress

> -Original Message- > From: MARTIN PHILIP [mailto:codematt...@ntlworld.com] On Behalf Of > Philip Martin > Sent: vrijdag 4 januari 2013 16:07 > To: Bert Huijben > Cc: 'Julian Foad'; Michael Pilato; 'Stefan Sperling'; 'Ben Reser'; 'Subversion > Development' > Subject: Re: 1.8 Progress >

Re: 1.8 Progress

"Bert Huijben" writes: >> -Original Message- >> From: MARTIN PHILIP [mailto:codematt...@ntlworld.com] On Behalf Of >> >> - handle an update that makes no text/property/tree changes in the >> move source, probably by creating a tree-conflict during the >> post-drive revision bum

Re: [PATCH] Implement svnadmin verify --keep-going

Thanks for this version, Prabhu.  It looks much better.  Still a few more points... Prabhu Gnana Sundar wrote: > On 12/20/2012 11:25 PM, Julian Foad wrote: >> The output for a failed revision depends on whether --keep-going was >> passed.  With --keep-going you print a "* Error verifying revis