On Sun, Jun 22, 2014 at 5:13 AM, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
>...
> TODO:
> =
> Blocking the release:
> ---
> * Finalize get_remaining(): Ivan has added this function to the bucket
> API, but it's only implemented for some buckets. I don't think the new
> API is in use (don
Hi dev list,
I saw a section in
https://wiki.apache.org/subversion/SupportedMergeScenarios saying
about non-tracked merges: "### WHICH MERGES ARE THESE? WHEN ARE THEY
APPROPRIATE? WHEN DO THEY HAPPEN SILENTLY?"
A merge like that would make sense if you wanted to do a Git-style
rebase for whatever
Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> I see three alternative ways to code that function
>
> 1. As hard coded string / byte sequence (current implementation).
>
> Cons:
> * Hard to write, hard to review by just looking at it (applies to time
> until initial release only).
>
> Pros:
> * Explicitly
On 26.06.2014 17:45, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 05:08:38PM +0200, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>> I'd be fine with switching to option 2 as long as everyone understands
>> the implications.
> How about we write option 3 code to generate option 1 code, then hardcode
> the generated o
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 05:08:38PM +0200, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> I see three alternative ways to code that function
>
> 1. As hard coded string / byte sequence (current implementation).
> Cons:
> * Hard to write, hard to review by just looking at it (applies to time
> until initial release o
On Thu, Jun 26, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 25 June 2014 22:11, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 20:03:11 +0400:
> >> On 25 June 2014 19:54, Stefan Fuhrmann
> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Ivan Zhakov
> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On
On 22 June 2014 14:13, Lieven Govaerts wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> I propose we start planning a serf 1.4 release.
>
> Serf trunk has some features that will be used in the upcoming
> Subversion 1.9, so I'd like to get 1.4 out when the Subversion devs
> start releasing 1.9 release candidates. (When is that
Branko Čibej writes:
> Should be fixed in r1605739.
Yes, the tests now pass on my box.
--
Philip Martin | Subversion Committer
WANdisco // *Non-Stop Data*
On 26.06.2014 13:15, Philip Martin wrote:
> Branko Čibej writes:
>
>> On 26.06.2014 13:04, Philip Martin wrote:
>>
>> Yup, I've been looking at exactly this spot and I suspect that I need to
>> make a copy of the hash table into the correct pool.
>>> (gdb) p ht
>>> $1 = (apr_hash_t *) 0x7fffd8060c
Branko Čibej writes:
> On 26.06.2014 13:04, Philip Martin wrote:
>
> Yup, I've been looking at exactly this spot and I suspect that I need to
> make a copy of the hash table into the correct pool.
>>
>> (gdb) p ht
>> $1 = (apr_hash_t *) 0x7fffd8060c60
>> (gdb) p ht[0]
>> $2 = {pool = 0x7fffd80064
On 26.06.2014 13:04, Philip Martin wrote:
> Branko Čibej writes:
>
>> Results from valgrind or a debugger are pretty much useless because
>> there appear to be cases where the JVM /expects/ segfaults to happen,
>> and handles them itself ... but valgrind doesn't know enough to ignore
>> them. Sinc
Branko Čibej writes:
> Results from valgrind or a debugger are pretty much useless because
> there appear to be cases where the JVM /expects/ segfaults to happen,
> and handles them itself ... but valgrind doesn't know enough to ignore
> them. Since they happen in different threads, the timing is
On 26.06.2014 12:22, Philip Martin wrote:
> Philip Martin writes:
>
>>> Can you please send the JVM stack trace file, too? Thanks.
>> I don't think it is much use as the exact crash varies from run to run.
>> It happens after different numbers of dots in the test output and the
>> stack trace vari
Branko Čibej writes:
> On 25.06.2014 14:43, Philip Martin wrote:
>> Philip Martin writes:
>>
>>> I'm getting a SEGV in the JVM and it varies from run to run, two
>>> examples at the end. I tried r1603298 and r1603297 and those also SEGV.
>> Looks like I made a mistake when building the older ve
On 25 June 2014 22:11, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Ivan Zhakov wrote on Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 20:03:11 +0400:
>> On 25 June 2014 19:54, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>> > On Wed, Jun 25, 2014 at 5:46 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 25 June 2014 19:24, Stefan Fuhrmann
>> >> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Jun 2
On 25.06.2014 14:45, Philip Martin wrote:
> Philip Martin writes:
>
>> Philip Martin writes:
>>
>>> I'm getting a SEGV in the JVM and it varies from run to run, two
>>> examples at the end. I tried r1603298 and r1603297 and those also SEGV.
>> Looks like I made a mistake when building the older
On 25.06.2014 14:43, Philip Martin wrote:
> Philip Martin writes:
>
>> I'm getting a SEGV in the JVM and it varies from run to run, two
>> examples at the end. I tried r1603298 and r1603297 and those also SEGV.
> Looks like I made a mistake when building the older versions. I am now
> seeing the
17 matches
Mail list logo
