On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>>> I updated my Windows laptop to 1.8.0 final. I am trying to commit a
>>> change for Subclipse to tigris.org and it is faili
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> I sent Lieven a tcpdump. Hopefully that will help. In the meantime I
> found another tool that analyzes HTTP traffic. The last request
> before it fails is a DELETE request that the server responds with a
> 204. Would that be unexpected b
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> I updated my Windows laptop to 1.8.0 final. I am trying to commit a
>> change for Subclipse to tigris.org and it is failing. The error
>> message is not that helpful. Any ideas ho
I'd like to implement 'svn-bench null-blame', to measure the
server-side (and network) involved in blame (mainly get_file_revs2).
I started by copying blame-cmd.c to null-blame-cmd.c, but then I
realized that most client-side work during 'blame' is actually done in
the client layer, i.e. blame.c (
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> I updated my Windows laptop to 1.8.0 final. I am trying to commit a
> change for Subclipse to tigris.org and it is failing. The error
> message is not that helpful. Any ideas how to get better error
> information?
There might be a higher
I updated my Windows laptop to 1.8.0 final. I am trying to commit a
change for Subclipse to tigris.org and it is failing. The error
message is not that helpful. Any ideas how to get better error
information?
>svn ci -m "Post 1.10.0 release" trunk
Sending
trunk\subclipse\org.tigris.subve
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:59 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 06/17/2013 02:35 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:28 PM, C. Michael Pilato
>> wrote:
>>> My testing seems to show that we do not appear to commit externals pulled
>>> from a different repository than the primary
On 06/17/2013 02:35 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:28 PM, C. Michael Pilato
> wrote:
>> My testing seems to show that we do not appear to commit externals pulled
>> from a different repository than the primary working copy. Can someone
>> confirm this? Is there a technical
The unintended "private email" CMike referred to a bit ago:
On Jun 13, 2013 8:13 PM, "Greg Stein" wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 7:34 PM, C. Michael Pilato
> wrote:
> > On 06/13/2013 08:00 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >...
> >> People don't pay attention to branches. That has been empirically
> pro
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:28 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> The 1.8 release notes read as follows:
>
>The svn commit command supports a new --include-externals option, which
>causes it to commit changes within externals in the current working
>copy, in addition to the changes in the cu
The 1.8 release notes read as follows:
The svn commit command supports a new --include-externals option, which
causes it to commit changes within externals in the current working
copy, in addition to the changes in the current working copy. This works
by implicitly adding all externals
I think this is a feature that could also benefit svn checkin, as many
times I'm working on multiple disjoint functions or there is a common
config file that is needed for checkout and may require some tweaks (such
as running on simulated hardware, etc) but usually shouldn't be checked in.
I would
On 17.06.2013 18:34, Andy Singleton wrote:
> On 6/17/2013 11:36 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:24:45 -0400:
>>> On 06/17/2013 09:57 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 09:36:29AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 06/13/2013 10
On 6/17/2013 11:36 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:24:45 -0400:
On 06/17/2013 09:57 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 09:36:29AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
On 06/13/2013 10:30 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
Fair enough. But I think you'r
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:24:45 -0400:
> On 06/17/2013 09:57 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 09:36:29AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> >> On 06/13/2013 10:30 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> >>> Fair enough. But I think you're talking about Step Two. There is
On 06/17/2013 09:57 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 09:36:29AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> On 06/13/2013 10:30 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
>>> Fair enough. But I think you're talking about Step Two. There is more
>>> work on what "stable" means, what time schedules to use, etc.
Hi,
Due to controverse discussion and some opposition on the hackathon, and the
impression that this issue is currently not that urgent yet, I withdraw this
proposal for now.
I'll come back with it as soon as our test suite is grown so big that it
warrants selective test execution. :-)
Best
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 09:36:29AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 06/13/2013 10:30 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> > Fair enough. But I think you're talking about Step Two. There is more
> > work on what "stable" means, what time schedules to use, etc. That's
> > Step One.
>
> In private mail, you a
On 06/13/2013 10:30 PM, Greg Stein wrote:
> Fair enough. But I think you're talking about Step Two. There is more
> work on what "stable" means, what time schedules to use, etc. That's
> Step One.
In private mail, you also asked for tighter definition of the various
trimesters of stability (which
tomchiver...@tigris.org wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 05:25:08 -0700:
> Here's another great use case; suppose we copy foo.html to foo2.html do some
> work we can show to people without effecting a live site.
>
> Later when we want to publish them, like good source control users we (or our
> tools
20 matches
Mail list logo
