Summary:
+1 to release
Platform:
Linux (Debian/jessie) 64-bit
Tested:
(local, svn, svn/sasl, serf, serf/v1) x (fsfs, fsfs/pack/shard, bdb, fsx)
swig-pl, swig-py, swig-rb, ctypes-python
javahl x (fsfs, bdb, fsx)
Results:
FAIL svnadmin_tests.py 32, 33 and 34 with pack/shard due to
On 4 June 2015 at 16:34, Bert Huijben wrote:
> I would say it is safer to cache SVN_INVALID_REVNUM (or another certainly
> invalid revision number) than to set the potentially valid r0.
>
Hi Bert,
Any repository has zero revision, so it's pretty safe to assume that
repository youngest revision at
I would say it is safer to cache SVN_INVALID_REVNUM (or another certainly
invalid revision number) than to set the potentially valid r0.
Bert
Sent from Surface
From: Ivan Zhakov
Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2015 3:25 PM
To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
Author: ivan
Date:
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Daniel Shahaf
wrote:
> Ben Reser wrote on Sun, May 31, 2015 at 14:28:39 -0700:
> > The 1.9.0-rc2 release artifacts are now available for testing/signing.
> > Please get the tarballs from
> > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/subversion
> > and add your sign
On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 21.05.2015 17:23, Evgeny Kotkov wrote:
> > Subversion 1.9.0-rc1 introduced a new svnadmin verify --keep-going mode
> [1].
> > In order to achieve this, we added a svn_repos_verify_fs3() API function
> and
> > deprecated its predecessor, svn
2015-05-29 20:55 GMT+02:00 Branko Čibej :
> On 29.05.2015 18:23, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> > On 29 May 2015 at 18:55, Stefan Fuhrmann
> wrote:
> >> You might be right. So, if you care about repository
> >> integrity, you should use your MSDN subscription and
> >> ask MS for clarification on FlushFileB
6 matches
Mail list logo
