On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 7:26 PM, Julian Foad
wrote:
> Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
> [...]
> > Yes, you are right. I'll fix this.
> [...]
> > I'll add test code for these as well.
>
> Thanks.
>
Done in r1650834.
After that you might want to eliminate the recursion, trivially, in both
> functions:
>
>
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 9:17 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> On 1/13/15 11:44 AM, Ben Reser wrote:
> > On 1/13/15 11:34 AM, Ben Reser wrote:
> >> On 1/13/15 11:13 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> >>> Since it is a test, what's wrong with just casting the first vararg to
> >>> (apr_uint64_t) instead, since we "kn
On 1/13/15 11:44 AM, Ben Reser wrote:
> On 1/13/15 11:34 AM, Ben Reser wrote:
>> On 1/13/15 11:13 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> Since it is a test, what's wrong with just casting the first vararg to
>>> (apr_uint64_t) instead, since we "know" (i.e., hope) that off_t won't
>>> overflow 64 bits ...
>>
On 1/13/15 11:34 AM, Ben Reser wrote:
> On 1/13/15 11:13 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> Since it is a test, what's wrong with just casting the first vararg to
>> (apr_uint64_t) instead, since we "know" (i.e., hope) that off_t won't
>> overflow 64 bits ...
>
> If you cast it to apr_uint64_t it can read
On 1/13/15 11:13 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Since it is a test, what's wrong with just casting the first vararg to
> (apr_uint64_t) instead, since we "know" (i.e., hope) that off_t won't
> overflow 64 bits ...
If you cast it to apr_uint64_t it can read into memory it shouldn't be (i.e.
the test may
On 13.01.2015 19:59, Ben Reser wrote:
> On 10/13/14 3:54 PM, stef...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: stefan2
>> Date: Mon Oct 13 22:54:13 2014
>> New Revision: 1631598
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1631598
>> Log:
>> Add FSFS index checksum verification code to 'svnadmin verify'.
>>
>> We don't ve
On 10/13/14 3:54 PM, stef...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: stefan2
> Date: Mon Oct 13 22:54:13 2014
> New Revision: 1631598
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1631598
> Log:
> Add FSFS index checksum verification code to 'svnadmin verify'.
>
> We don't verify the index data against the checksums on ev
Bert Huijben wrote:
> I haven't reviewed all of this, but I'm wondering why in your patch
> [[
> def parse_path(self):
> - path = self.parse_line('Node-path: (.+)$', required=False)
> - if not path and self.lines[self.current] == 'Node-path: \n':
> - self.current += 1
> - path =
> -Original Message-
> From: Julian Foad [mailto:julianf...@btopenworld.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 13 januari 2015 15:22
> To: Branko Čibej
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Testing equality between svnrdump and svnadmin dump
>
> The next version of my testing patch is attached. I
The next version of my testing patch is attached. It pipes each dumpfile
through svndumpfilter and checks that a no-op filtering does not change
anything.
This finds some differences between svnadmin and svndumpfilter:
1. When a revision has no revprops, svnadmin outputs an empty properties
se
10 matches
Mail list logo
