On Fri, Nov 07, 2014 at 11:18:03PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> This long standoff is unfortunate and costly (time consuming), and
> it's quite painful for the community. But what really saddens me is to
> see that there is no longer a constructive chemistry between the two
> of you.
+1
Because the UI was directly inspired by Subversion, people here might
find my latest project of some interest.
Simple Revision Control
The venerable RCS (Revsion Control System) has survived into the era
of distributed version control because it fills a niche: sometimes yo
On 07.11.2014 14:05, Stuart Rossiter wrote:
> All,
>
> [Not subscribed; please cc me.]
>
> Posting directly here (rather than users) since I'm pretty sure of this.
>
> org.tigris.subversion.javahl.SVNClient has a bug:
The org.tigrs namespace in JavaHL has been deprecated for quite a while now.
>
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 7:00 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann
wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>
>> On 7 November 2014 17:57, Stefan Fuhrmann
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 7 November 2014 03:00, Greg Stein wrote:
>> >> > Forw
All,
[Not subscribed; please cc me.]
Posting directly here (rather than users) since I'm pretty sure of this.
org.tigris.subversion.javahl.SVNClient has a bug: propertyGet wraps a call
to the same method for the Apache package equivalent, but doesn't handle
nulls in the response, so the caller
On 07.11.2014 17:46, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 8:30 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>
>> On 07.11.2014 16:02, Mark Phippard wrote:
On Nov 7, 2014, at 6:46 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 07.11.2014 14:07, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> Actually, I have used my veto on the log addre
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 6:04 PM, Evgeny Kotkov
wrote:
> Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
>
> > Let's not repeat the revprop caching debacle. In Berlin this year, you
> > told us that you had identified issues with it and decided to disable it
> > in VisualSVN. Had you told us before 1.8, we might have fou
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 5:49 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 7 November 2014 17:57, Stefan Fuhrmann
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7 November 2014 03:00, Greg Stein wrote:
> >> > Forward progress is the goal. To *hold back* change, then you must
> veto.
On Nov 7, 2014, at 6:57 AM, Stefan Fuhrmann
wrote:
>
>
> My side of the bargain has been trying to think of unnecessary
> restrictions that FSFSv7 might have and then to fix them. It
> started with performance in "unmanaged" setups, continued
> with support for heterogeneous clusters and curren
Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
> Let's not repeat the revprop caching debacle. In Berlin this year, you
> told us that you had identified issues with it and decided to disable it
> in VisualSVN. Had you told us before 1.8, we might have found that the
> underlying infrastructure is too restrictive. If n
On 7 November 2014 17:57, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>
>> On 7 November 2014 03:00, Greg Stein wrote:
>> > Forward progress is the goal. To *hold back* change, then you must veto.
>> >
>> I agree with that goal but not at the cost of possible mas
> On Nov 7, 2014, at 8:30 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
> On 07.11.2014 16:02, Mark Phippard wrote:
>>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 6:46 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>>
On 07.11.2014 14:07, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
Actually, I have used my veto on the log addressing feature two months
ago [1].
>>> How
On 07.11.2014 16:02, Mark Phippard wrote:
>> On Nov 7, 2014, at 6:46 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>
>>> On 07.11.2014 14:07, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>>> Actually, I have used my veto on the log addressing feature two months
>>> ago [1].
>> How many times do how many people have to explain that saying "-1"
On 7 November 2014 02:44, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> [This goes mostly to Ivan but the last part goes to Brane. Don't want to
> sub-thread here.]
>
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 8:24 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>
>> On 06.11.2014 20:03, i...@apache.org wrote:
>> > Author: ivan
>> > Date: Thu Nov 6 19:03:3
> On Nov 7, 2014, at 6:46 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> On 07.11.2014 14:07, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> Actually, I have used my veto on the log addressing feature two months
>> ago [1].
>
> How many times do how many people have to explain that saying "-1"
> without substantiating that with technica
On Fri, Nov 7, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 7 November 2014 03:00, Greg Stein wrote:
> > Forward progress is the goal. To *hold back* change, then you must veto.
> >
> I agree with that goal but not at the cost of possible massive data
> corruptions in upgraded repositories. "There w
On 07.11.2014 14:07, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> Actually, I have used my veto on the log addressing feature two months
> ago [1].
How many times do how many people have to explain that saying "-1"
without substantiating that with technical reasons is not a valid veto?
-- Brane
On 7 November 2014 03:00, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 6, 2014 at 2:07 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
>>
>> On 11/6/14 8:44 AM, Greg Stein wrote:
[...]
>> That said, given the ambiguity of our policy situation here I'm not
>> inclined to
>> try and "fix" any sort of failure on our part to follow such a
On 17 October 2014 03:13, wrote:
> Author: stefan2
> Date: Fri Oct 17 00:13:49 2014
> New Revision: 1632450
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1632450
> Log:
> Prepare 'svnfsfs stats' code to be split into a logic part within FSFS,
> a UI bit in svnfsfs and an FSFS-private interface in between them.
19 matches
Mail list logo
