defining obstructions (was: Re: svn commit: r1687029 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/mergeinfo_tests.py)

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 11:59:25PM +, Bert Huijben wrote: > Update and merge report ‘obstructed; for different reasons… But are within > itself pretty consistent, and the documentation of obstructed in svn_wc.h > supports both implementations. Can you explain how the reasons for reporting an

Re: svn commit: r1687029 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/mergeinfo_tests.py

Update and merge report ‘obstructed; for different reasons… But are within itself pretty consistent, and the documentation of obstructed in svn_wc.h supports both implementations. (I tried to make this more consistent a few months ago, but found that a lot of code and tests depends on the curre

Re: svn commit: r1687029 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/mergeinfo_tests.py

Bert and Stefan, The following patch also appears to fix the bug -- all tests pass. However, see my further comments below. [[[ Index: subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c === --- subversion/libsvn_client/merge.c(revision 1687145) ++

Re: FSFS7: 'svnadmin hotcopy' requires write access to the source

Stefan Fuhrmann writes: [...] > r1686554 removes the intermedite source repo locking layer. You may try > reverting the remainder r1589284, resolve the conflicts and review the > result. If you then still think that the resulting patch is an > improvement, by all means commit it. I reverted the

Re: svn commit: r1682265 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/util.c

On 28 May 2015 at 19:52, Ivan Zhakov wrote: > On 28 May 2015 at 19:25, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: >> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >>> >>> On 28 May 2015 at 18:45, wrote: >>> > Author: stefan2 >>> > Date: Thu May 28 15:45:55 2015 >>> > New Revision: 1682265 >>> > >>> > URL: h

Re: svn commit: r1687079 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/hotcopy.c

Branko Čibej writes: >> Author: kotkov >> Date: Tue Jun 23 14:34:05 2015 >> New Revision: 1687079 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1687079 >> Log: >> Only lock the hotcopy destination (by taking db/write-lock, db/pack-lock >> and db/txn-current-lock) when we are running in the incremental mode.

Re: inconsistency between mergeinfo records

Hi, Building SVN now succeeds (120 warnings which I ignore for the time being though), but when trying to start the built svn.exe process, I'm facing the following error popup. --- svn.exe - Entry Point Not Found --- The procedure entry point svn__

Re: Experiments with FlushFileBuffers on Windows

On 16 June 2015 at 22:57, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > Hey there, > > One of the links recently provided by Daniel Klima pointed > to a way to enable write caching even on USB devices. > So, I could use my Windows installation for experiments now > without the risk of brick-ing 2 grand worth of disks

Re: svn commit: r1687079 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_fs_fs/hotcopy.c

On 23.06.2015 16:34, kot...@apache.org wrote: > Author: kotkov > Date: Tue Jun 23 14:34:05 2015 > New Revision: 1687079 > > URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1687079 > Log: > Only lock the hotcopy destination (by taking db/write-lock, db/pack-lock > and db/txn-current-lock) when we are running in the inc

Re: inconsistency between mergeinfo records

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 3:18 PM, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Stefan Hett wrote: >> >> Hi Stefan^2, >> >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Stefan Hett wrote: >>> >>> Hi Stefan, >>> >>> thanks for taking the time to write that tool. >>> I've scheduled a time-slot to c

Re: inconsistency between mergeinfo records

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 2:33 PM, Stefan Hett wrote: > Hi Stefan^2, > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Stefan Hett wrote: > >> Hi Stefan, >> >> thanks for taking the time to write that tool. >> I've scheduled a time-slot to check this out/test on our side. >> Unfortunately, our current proje

Re: inconsistency between mergeinfo records

Hi Stefan^2, On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 2:21 PM, Stefan Hett > wrote: Hi Stefan, thanks for taking the time to write that tool. I've scheduled a time-slot to check this out/test on our side. Unfortunately, our current project plan doesn't provide enough

Re: svn commit: r1687029 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/mergeinfo_tests.py

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 01:34:59PM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote: > I don't think this label accurately describes the intended case of this test. > > Personally I think it is better to add mergeinfo on the TC-victim then to > *add* non-inherital mergeinfo to both the direct ancestor *and* inheritable

RE: svn commit: r1687029 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/mergeinfo_tests.py

> -Original Message- > From: s...@apache.org [mailto:s...@apache.org] > Sent: dinsdag 23 juni 2015 13:18 > To: comm...@subversion.apache.org > Subject: svn commit: r1687029 - > /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/mergeinfo_tests.py > > Author: stsp > Date: Tue Jun 23 11:18:15 2015

Re: keywords not updated after an update that doesn't change the file due to local changes

Vincent Lefevre wrote: > I have the following problem under Debian with the subversion 1.8.13-1 > Debian package, but I don't think that this is Debian specific. > > It seems that "svn update" doesn't update keywords when the local > modifications on the concerned file are the same as in the reposi

Re: keywords not updated after an update that doesn't change the file due to local changes

Here's the revision On 23 June 2015 at 10:45, Julian Foad wrote: > Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> I have the following problem under Debian with the subversion 1.8.13-1 >> Debian package, but I don't think that this is Debian specific. >> >> It seems that "svn update" doesn't update keywords when the