Hi,
On 09/04/15 10:37, Bert Huijben wrote:
> On 09/04/15 10:04, Andreas Stieger wrote:
>>
>> I am getting the following test failures with 1.9.0-beta1 with the very
>> recently released SQLite 3.8.9. I have not yet investigated but will dump
>> the log anyway.
>>
>> [ 875s] [050/110]
>> wc-q
On 09.04.2015 16:57, Bert Huijben wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Stefan Kueng [mailto:tortoise...@gmail.com]
Sent: woensdag 8 april 2015 19:46
To: Subversion Development
Subject: error committing to 1.7 servers
Hi,
While trying to commit a change to an xml file with the svn:mime-t
On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 05:49:19PM +0200, Marc Strapetz wrote:
> For a working copy which has been checked out using SVN 1.8, "svn info"
> output is slightly different between version 1.8 and 1.9 -- for 1.9 the
> local *dir* is missing.
>
> For 1.8:
>
> $ svn info a/b
> Path: a\b
> Name: b
> Repo
For a working copy which has been checked out using SVN 1.8, "svn info"
output is slightly different between version 1.8 and 1.9 -- for 1.9 the
local *dir* is missing.
For 1.8:
$ svn info a/b
Path: a\b
Name: b
Repository Root: ...
Repository UUID: ...
Node Kind: none
Schedule: normal
Tree conf
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Kueng [mailto:tortoise...@gmail.com]
> Sent: woensdag 8 april 2015 19:46
> To: Subversion Development
> Subject: error committing to 1.7 servers
>
> Hi,
>
> While trying to commit a change to an xml file with the svn:mime-type
> property set to "text/
Hi Stefan. You mentioned you have an idea about making 'branchify'
less 'destructive' -- that is, making it possible to start developing
in a subtree and then later treat that subtree as a sub-branch without
breaking its history.
Currently the 'svnmover branchify' command creates a completely new
Julian Foad wrote:
> On 7 April 2015 at 21:59, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>> * Trying to rename a sub-branch root:
>> svnmover> mv trunk/sub trunk/A
>> mv: moving by copy-and-delete
>> svnmover: warning: apr_err=SVN_ERR_ASSERTION_FAIL
>> svnmover: warning: W235000: In file 'subversion/libsvn_de
This tells me that it started using the index in a less efficient way... Or
more precisely a useless way. But as it is just the EXTERNALS table I don't
think it will really affect end user performance in a measurable way.
We should probably add a new record to the stats table to work around this
Hello,
I am getting the following test failures with 1.9.0-beta1 with the very
recently released SQLite 3.8.9. I have not yet investigated but will dump the
log anyway.
[ 875s] [050/110]
wc-queries-testFAILURE
[...]
[ 4950s] At least one test FA
9 matches
Mail list logo