On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 6:48 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is based on what was discussed in Berlin already.
>
> The goal is to get FSFS improvements reviewed & integrated
> into /trunk a.s.a.p. and to bring the code for the new backend
> to /trunk as well and continue development
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 2:12 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>...
> In my opinion it's OK to release 1.8.1, and just put in the release
> notes that in order to fix those problems, one needs to build with
> Serf-1.2.2 or later.
1.2.2 is a patch release. No need to build against it. Building
against 1.2.x
On 07/01/2013 05:37 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> How about adding 'svn cleanup --rm-I' as a short option for 'svn cleanup
> --remove-ignored'?
File an ENHANCEMENT issue with a note to evaluate later whether there is
sufficient user demand for the option?
--
C. Michael Pilato
CollabNet <> www
Stefan Sperling wrote on Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 00:29:14 +0200:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 01:14:45AM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 01:12:17 +0300:
> > > Stefan Sperling wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 23:52:10 +0200:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 12:37:44
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 01:14:45AM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 01:12:17 +0300:
> > Stefan Sperling wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 23:52:10 +0200:
> > > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 12:37:44AM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > > How about adding 'svn cleanup -
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 01:12:17 +0300:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 23:52:10 +0200:
> > On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 12:37:44AM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > How about adding 'svn cleanup --rm-I' as a short option for 'svn cleanup
> > > --remove-ignored'?
> >
Stefan Sperling wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 23:52:10 +0200:
> On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 12:37:44AM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > How about adding 'svn cleanup --rm-I' as a short option for 'svn cleanup
> > --remove-ignored'?
> >
> > Currently we have --cl as a short option for --changelist, and
On Tue, Jul 02, 2013 at 12:37:44AM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> How about adding 'svn cleanup --rm-I' as a short option for 'svn cleanup
> --remove-ignored'?
>
> Currently we have --cl as a short option for --changelist, and in the
> past we decided not to add --sca as a short option for --show-c
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:37 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> How about adding 'svn cleanup --rm-I' as a short option for 'svn cleanup
> --remove-ignored'?
>
It's better to leave only long option name for '--remove-ignored'
since it's potentially dangerous/destructive command.
--
Ivan Zhakov
CTO | Visu
How about adding 'svn cleanup --rm-I' as a short option for 'svn cleanup
--remove-ignored'?
Currently we have --cl as a short option for --changelist, and in the
past we decided not to add --sca as a short option for --show-copies-as-adds.
#svn-dev asked me to post here before committing, so here
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote on Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:49:01 -0400:
>> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>...
>> > Okay. Suppose Ev2 is released in 1.9 and svn:special=blockdev in 1.10.
>> > An app is built against libsvn_fs-1.9 and
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 23:16:25 +0300:
> Expected behaviour:
> % $svn cleanup --remove-ignored gen-make.opts
> Dgen-make.opts
Filed this as issue #4385, at stsp's request.
Actual behaviour:
% $svn cleanup --remove-ignored gen-make.opts
subversion/svn/cleanup-cmd.c:112,
subversion/libsvn_client/cleanup.c:238,
subversion/libsvn_client/cleanup.c:107,
subversion/libsvn_wc/cleanup.c:218,
subversion/libsvn_wc/cleanup.c:149,
subversion/libsvn_wc/
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> In my opinion it's OK to release 1.8.1, and just put in the release
> notes that in order to fix those problems, one needs to build with
> Serf-1.2.2 or later. I expect that most people can get along just fine
> with Serf-1.2.1; and, as Greg p
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 20:12:11 +0200:
>> On 01.07.2013 20:08, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> > Lieven Govaerts wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 19:44:24 +0200:
>> >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> >>> On Mo
Branko Čibej wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 20:12:11 +0200:
> On 01.07.2013 20:08, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Lieven Govaerts wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 19:44:24 +0200:
> >> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> I know t
On 07/01/2013 02:16 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 14:13:50 -0400:
>> I saw the "user-agent" change go through. What about "compat-version"? Did
>> you intentionally omit that one?
>
> No; svn:txn-client-compat-version was already being set over ra_loc
On 01.07.2013 20:07, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 19:41:10 +0200:
>> On 01.07.2013 19:36, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> Thinking about the behaviour of 'svn blame -r 50:20 file@50':
>>>
>>> Right now, if I'm not mistaken, it wants 'file@5 -r 20' to exist. Johan
>>>
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 14:13:50 -0400:
> On 07/01/2013 02:01 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 13:23:59 -0400:
> >> On 07/01/2013 11:54 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >>> SVN_RA_CAPABILITY_EPHEMERAL_TXNPROPS seems to be queried only by
On 07/01/2013 02:01 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 13:23:59 -0400:
>> On 07/01/2013 11:54 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>>> SVN_RA_CAPABILITY_EPHEMERAL_TXNPROPS seems to be queried only by the
>>> libsvn_ra_serf and libsvn_ra_svn. Is there a reason not to eit
On 01.07.2013 20:08, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Lieven Govaerts wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 19:44:24 +0200:
>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
I know this is a holiday week for some people but I'd like to start
prod
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 19:50:56 +0300:
> I'm not familiar with this part of the code - can I have a second pair
> of eyes over this, please?
>
> [[[
> * subversion/libsvn_client/blame.c
> (svn_client_blame5): When opening the RA session, treat START and END
> symmetrical
Lieven Govaerts wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 19:44:24 +0200:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> >> I know this is a holiday week for some people but I'd like to start
> >> producing a 1.8.1 next Monday. So if everyone ca
Branko Čibej wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 19:41:10 +0200:
> On 01.07.2013 19:36, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Thinking about the behaviour of 'svn blame -r 50:20 file@50':
> >
> > Right now, if I'm not mistaken, it wants 'file@5 -r 20' to exist. Johan
> > suggested it should automatically round 20 up
C. Michael Pilato wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 13:23:59 -0400:
> On 07/01/2013 11:54 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > SVN_RA_CAPABILITY_EPHEMERAL_TXNPROPS seems to be queried only by the
> > libsvn_ra_serf and libsvn_ra_svn. Is there a reason not to either:
> >
> > - Make ra_local set those properti
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
>> I know this is a holiday week for some people but I'd like to start
>> producing a 1.8.1 next Monday. So if everyone can look at the STATUS
>> file for 1.8.x and get any things they want in
On 01.07.2013 19:36, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Thinking about the behaviour of 'svn blame -r 50:20 file@50':
>
> Right now, if I'm not mistaken, it wants 'file@5 -r 20' to exist. Johan
> suggested it should automatically round 20 up to the oldest revision in
> which the file existed, to enable, for e
Thinking about the behaviour of 'svn blame -r 50:20 file@50':
Right now, if I'm not mistaken, it wants 'file@5 -r 20' to exist. Johan
suggested it should automatically round 20 up to the oldest revision in
which the file existed, to enable, for example, 'svn blame -r 50:0' by
analogy to 'svn log
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> I know this is a holiday week for some people but I'd like to start
> producing a 1.8.1 next Monday. So if everyone can look at the STATUS
> file for 1.8.x and get any things they want in there I'll produce a
> 1.8.1 tarball for voting sometime o
I know this is a holiday week for some people but I'd like to start
producing a 1.8.1 next Monday. So if everyone can look at the STATUS
file for 1.8.x and get any things they want in there I'll produce a
1.8.1 tarball for voting sometime on Monday US/Pacific (UTC-7) time.
On 07/01/2013 11:54 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> SVN_RA_CAPABILITY_EPHEMERAL_TXNPROPS seems to be queried only by the
> libsvn_ra_serf and libsvn_ra_svn. Is there a reason not to either:
>
> - Make ra_local set those properties too
> or
> - Move the logic querying that capability (and when availabl
I'm not familiar with this part of the code - can I have a second pair
of eyes over this, please?
[[[
* subversion/libsvn_client/blame.c
(svn_client_blame5): When opening the RA session, treat START and END
symmetrically: do not always open to END, since START may be younger.
]]]
[[[
Index:
SVN_RA_CAPABILITY_EPHEMERAL_TXNPROPS seems to be queried only by the
libsvn_ra_serf and libsvn_ra_svn. Is there a reason not to either:
- Make ra_local set those properties too
or
- Move the logic querying that capability (and when available setting
svn:txn-* revprops) to ra_loader.c
?
The te
Stefan Sperling wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 15:40:18 +0200:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 04:05:54PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Daniel Shahaf wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 15:52:32 +0300:
> > > No, we should extend the test to run 'svn ls' or 'svnadmin verify' to
> > > ensure that creating the p
On 07/01/2013 09:42 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:08:17AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> {{{
>> Should we require vote-based approval on the reintegration of feature
>> branches? At least some of the hackathon attendees favor the typical “three
>> +1's and no vetos” –
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 09:08:17AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> {{{
> Should we require vote-based approval on the reintegration of feature
> branches? At least some of the hackathon attendees favor the typical “three
> +1's and no vetos” – the room was not polled for general consensus here,
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 04:05:54PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 15:52:32 +0300:
> > No, we should extend the test to run 'svn ls' or 'svnadmin verify' to
> > ensure that creating the path with \n in it didn't break anything.
Fair enough, that's good eno
On 07/01/2013 08:50 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Ivan Zhakov wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 16:42:27 +0400:
>> I remember we discussed policy about requiring three +1 for merging
>> branches.
>
> Link, please?
>
My recollection was that the discussion that was had occurred in person in
Berlin. I i
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 15:52:32 +0300:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 14:45:42 +0200:
> > On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 03:10:26PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > Stefan Sperling wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 13:52:08 +0200:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 02:33:06
Stefan Sperling wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 14:45:42 +0200:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 03:10:26PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Stefan Sperling wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 13:52:08 +0200:
> > > On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 02:33:06PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > > I don't remember whether I po
Ivan Zhakov wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 16:42:27 +0400:
> I remember we discussed policy about requiring three +1 for merging
> branches.
Link, please?
Greg Stein wrote on Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 02:49:01 -0400:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:59 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Greg Stein wrote on Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 01:25:42 -0400:
> >> On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 1:19 AM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >> >...
> >> > So, to be explicit: calling add_symlink() when
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 03:10:26PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 13:52:08 +0200:
> > On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 02:33:06PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > I don't remember whether I pointed this out when Stefan originally wrote
> > > that code:
> > >
>
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This is based on what was discussed in Berlin already.
>
> The goal is to get FSFS improvements reviewed & integrated
> into /trunk a.s.a.p. and to bring the code for the new backend
> to /trunk as well and continue development
Julian Foad wrote on Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 18:42:18 +0100:
> For the record, to make it easier to understand our current position in
> retrospect, I'll try to summarize our findings about the 'rotate' operation
> so far.
>
> We started with a requirement:
>
> * Represent with 'true moves' any
Branko Čibej wrote on Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 20:13:20 +0200:
> On 27.06.2013 19:33, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Philip Martin wrote on Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 17:47:54 +0100:
> >> Daniel Shahaf writes:
> >>
> >>> My own answer to "how to change Ev2 to enable representing
> >>> rotate(A,A/B/C)":
> >>>
> >
Greg Stein wrote on Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 13:32:40 -0400:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 7:16 AM, wrote:
> > Author: stefan2
> > Date: Sun Jun 30 11:16:40 2013
> > New Revision: 1498089
> >
> > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1498089
> > Log:
> > On the fsfs-format7 branch: First step in creating the new F
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 13:42:19 +0200:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:48:20PM +0200, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > This is based on what was discussed in Berlin already.
> > >
> > > The goal is to
Stefan Sperling wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 13:52:08 +0200:
> On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 02:33:06PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > I don't remember whether I pointed this out when Stefan originally wrote
> > that code:
> >
> > [[[
> > * subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
> > (filename_trailing
prabh...@apache.org wrote on Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 12:01:38 -:
>/* Show the summary. */
> - if (notify_func && keep_going)
> + if (notify_func && keep_going && found_corruption)
> {
>notify_verification_summary(err, notify_func, notify_baton, iterpool);
Thanks.
> +++ subver
stef...@apache.org wrote on Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 18:46:54 -:
> Author: stefan2
> Date: Sun Jun 30 18:46:53 2013
> New Revision: 1498169
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1498169
> Log:
> On the fsfs-format7 branch: fix a linker issue with the new fsx backend.
> Give all non-static function a 'sv
On Mon, Jul 01, 2013 at 02:33:06PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> I don't remember whether I pointed this out when Stefan originally wrote
> that code:
>
> [[[
> * subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
> (filename_trailing_newline): Switch from a blacklist approach to
> to a whitelist approach
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 12:48:20PM +0200, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > This is based on what was discussed in Berlin already.
> >
> > The goal is to get FSFS improvements reviewed & integrated
> > into /trunk a.s.a.p. and to br
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> I don't remember whether I pointed this out when Stefan originally wrote
> that code:
>
> [[[
> * subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
> (filename_trailing_newline): Switch from a blacklist approach to
> to a whitelist approach, for def
I don't remember whether I pointed this out when Stefan originally wrote
that code:
[[[
* subversion/tests/libsvn_fs/fs-test.c
(filename_trailing_newline): Switch from a blacklist approach to
to a whitelist approach, for defining backends that don't implement
the API correctly.
]]]
Ind
55 matches
Mail list logo
