On 08.06.2015 20:22, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 08.06.2015 19:06, Evgeny Kotkov wrote:
>> Branko Čibej writes:
>>
>>> I completed your patch and committed the fix in r1683311. Please review!
>>>
>>> -- Brane
>> Sorry, I was on vacation last week and couldn't look at this fix earlier.
>>
>> I reviewe
On 09.06.2015 08:00, Branko Čibej wrote:
> I'm happy to announce the release of Apache Subversion 1.9.0-rc2.
As we discussed, this release restarts the soak period, which now ends
on 7 July.
We're expecting an -rc3 with minor fixes, which I propose we begin
rolling immediately.
-- Brane
I'm happy to announce the release of Apache Subversion 1.9.0-rc2.
Please choose the mirror closest to you by visiting:
http://subversion.apache.org/download/#pre-releases
The SHA1 checksums are:
f6bc5a8d605299c306ce8e247740557c820578d7 subversion-1.9.0-rc2.tar.bz2
963c10e3b7ed98b743c
On 08.06.2015 19:06, Evgeny Kotkov wrote:
> Branko Čibej writes:
>
>> I completed your patch and committed the fix in r1683311. Please review!
>>
>> -- Brane
> Sorry, I was on vacation last week and couldn't look at this fix earlier.
>
> I reviewed the committed patch and tested how Subversion 1.9
On 08.06.2015 15:37, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> I didn't think that any test suite failure should be called as release
> blocker and after thinking more I agree that this particular failure
> also should not be considered as blocker. Even it breaks my release
> testing scripts, since failure in one confi
Branko Čibej writes:
>
> I completed your patch and committed the fix in r1683311. Please review!
>
> -- Brane
Sorry, I was on vacation last week and couldn't look at this fix earlier.
I reviewed the committed patch and tested how Subversion 1.9.x behaves with it,
as the change itself got merge
On 8 June 2015 at 16:22, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 08.06.2015 14:53, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On 8 June 2015 at 14:37, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 08.06.2015 13:33, i...@apache.org wrote:
Author: ivan
Date: Mon Jun 8 11:33:42 2015
New Revision: 1684161
URL: http://svn.apache.
On 08.06.2015 14:53, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 8 June 2015 at 14:37, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 08.06.2015 13:33, i...@apache.org wrote:
>>> Author: ivan
>>> Date: Mon Jun 8 11:33:42 2015
>>> New Revision: 1684161
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1684161
>>> Log:
>>> * STATUS: Nominate r1684034 a
On 8 June 2015 at 14:37, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 08.06.2015 13:33, i...@apache.org wrote:
>> Author: ivan
>> Date: Mon Jun 8 11:33:42 2015
>> New Revision: 1684161
>>
>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1684161
>> Log:
>> * STATUS: Nominate r1684034 as release blocker.
>
>
> Ivan, a minor bug in the
On 08.06.2015 13:33, i...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: ivan
> Date: Mon Jun 8 11:33:42 2015
> New Revision: 1684161
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1684161
> Log:
> * STATUS: Nominate r1684034 as release blocker.
Ivan, a minor bug in the test suite isn't a release blocker by any
stretch of imagin
Hi,
Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 08.06.2015 04:19, Ruchir Arya wrote:
> > Hello everybody,
> >
> > I am new to SVN development. I have a question. Why is there no
> > implementation of changeset signing in subversion? Suppose if the
> > root/admin (who maintains repository) is not trustworthy,
>
> If
On 08.06.2015 04:19, Ruchir Arya wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> I am new to SVN development. I have a question. Why is there no
> implementation of changeset signing in subversion? Suppose if the
> root/admin (who maintains repository) is not trustworthy,
If your server administrator is not trustwo
12 matches
Mail list logo
