On 17/09/2015 13:14, Branko Čibej wrote:
On 17.09.2015 01:21, luke1...@apache.org wrote:
Author: luke1410
Date: Wed Sep 16 23:21:11 2015
New Revision: 1703470
URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1703470
Log:
Remove obsolete (since at least 1.7) step to run gen-make before building
Apache httpd for Wind
On 18.09.2015 06:52, br...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: brane
> Date: Fri Sep 18 04:52:22 2015
> New Revision: 1703740
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1703740&view=rev
> Log:
> Correctly propagate the log level through the multiple layers of test
> suite infrastructure and make sure the de
On 18.09.2015 05:25, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> ...
>> mantra and this sudden urgency to migrate the issue tracker yesterday. If
>> we waited for 5 years we may as well wait the couple extra days to get the
>> details right.
>>
> Or, in a couple day
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>...
> mantra and this sudden urgency to migrate the issue tracker yesterday. If
> we waited for 5 years we may as well wait the couple extra days to get the
> details right.
>
Or, in a couple days, Ivan departs the hackathon, gets caught up in
Hello,
This is a proposal for supporting the XDG Base Directory Specification[1] in
subversion.
Subversion by default creates its configuration and cache data under
HOME/.subversion.
This can be controlled via the --config-dir option in a wrapper script or
alias. The latter of which won't work
On 17 Sep 2015 8:56 pm, "Greg Stein" wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
> >...
>>>
>>> And I wonder why the people who're doing the least work on this
>>> migration have the most to say about not wasti
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 17 September 2015 at 21:53, Philip Martin
> wrote:
> > Ivan Zhakov writes:
> >
> >> I think now is good moment to discuss whether we should merge
> >> ra-reuse-session [1] branch to trunk or not: it's better to merge such
> >> branch in
On 17 September 2015 at 21:53, Philip Martin wrote:
> Ivan Zhakov writes:
>
>> I think now is good moment to discuss whether we should merge
>> ra-reuse-session [1] branch to trunk or not: it's better to merge such
>> branch in the beginning of release cycle, to have more time to test
>> and dogf
Ivan Zhakov writes:
> I think now is good moment to discuss whether we should merge
> ra-reuse-session [1] branch to trunk or not: it's better to merge such
> branch in the beginning of release cycle, to have more time to test
> and dogfood.
+1 to merge.
> Cons:
> - In makes behavior less stabl
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 7:18 AM, Mark Phippard wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>...
> And I wonder why the people who're doing the least work on this
>> migration have the most to say about not wasting time with "trivialities".
>>
>
> Speaking for myself only, it
Hi,
I think now is good moment to discuss whether we should merge
ra-reuse-session [1] branch to trunk or not: it's better to merge such
branch in the beginning of release cycle, to have more time to test
and dogfood.
The idea of the branch is pretty simple: add pool of RA sessions in
svn_client_
On 17 Sep 2015 3:10 pm, "Evgeny Kotkov" wrote:
>
> Stefan Sperling writes:
>
> > I think it would be good to give Evgeny a chance to manage a release
> > if he wants to. We really need more people capable of doing releases and
> > learning by doing is the only way to get there.
>
> I would like t
Stefan Sperling writes:
> I think it would be good to give Evgeny a chance to manage a release
> if he wants to. We really need more people capable of doing releases and
> learning by doing is the only way to get there.
I would like to do that.
Regards,
Evgeny Kotkov
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 02:04:13PM +0200, Branko Čibej wrote:
> +1. Evgeny, if you can write up the CHANGES entries for 1.9.2, that
> would really help. Let me know if/when it's done and I'll roll the 1.9.2
> tarballs. Give that today is Thursday, the first reasonable release date
> would be 30th S
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:31 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 17.09.2015 09:06, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Greg Stein wrote:
> >> Could I offer an opinion: the time stamps DO NOT MATTER.
> >>
> >> If a comment was posted at 15:00 or at 21:00 ... I don't care. If it
> was a
> >> Monday or a Tuesday ... I
On 17.09.2015 13:22, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 17 September 2015 at 13:13, Evgeny Kotkov
> wrote:
>> We've recently merged around 20 fixes into /branches/1.9.x, and most of them
>> address different sorts of crashes and segfaults. I think that it would be
>> nice to roll Subversion 1.9.2 with these
On 9/17/2015 1:22 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
On 17 September 2015 at 13:13, Evgeny Kotkov
wrote:
We've recently merged around 20 fixes into /branches/1.9.x, and most of them
address different sorts of crashes and segfaults. I think that it would be
nice to roll Subversion 1.9.2 with these fixes.
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 8:44 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> Just to keep everyone updated: ASF Infra team performed first test
> migration for us:
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN
>
> Please report me any problems or suggestions. Current TODO list:
> - Migrate attachments
> - Preserve history
On 17 September 2015 at 13:13, Evgeny Kotkov
wrote:
> We've recently merged around 20 fixes into /branches/1.9.x, and most of them
> address different sorts of crashes and segfaults. I think that it would be
> nice to roll Subversion 1.9.2 with these fixes.
>
> I could add the respective changelo
>>> Julian Foad wrote:
That's closer, but not correct. I checked some issue notification
emails to be sure.
The time stamps in the PDT portion of any year are now converted
correctly, but the time stamps in the PST (UTC-0800) portion of any
year are now converted to on
We've recently merged around 20 fixes into /branches/1.9.x, and most of them
address different sorts of crashes and segfaults. I think that it would be
nice to roll Subversion 1.9.2 with these fixes.
I could add the respective changelog entries and participate in rolling the
tarball. Are we good
On 17.09.2015 01:21, luke1...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: luke1410
> Date: Wed Sep 16 23:21:11 2015
> New Revision: 1703470
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/r1703470
> Log:
> Remove obsolete (since at least 1.7) step to run gen-make before building
> Apache httpd for Windows.
>
> * INSTALL
> docume
Bert wrote:
> I think we currently require APR >= 1.3 on trunk and 1.9, so feel free to
> remove outdated references to older versions.
Stefan wrote:
> The intend is to drop the sections about compatibility issues between
> APR 0.9.x and APR 1.x from the INSTALL documentation.
>
> Reasoning is tha
On 17.09.2015 09:06, Julian Foad wrote:
> Greg Stein wrote:
>> Could I offer an opinion: the time stamps DO NOT MATTER.
>>
>> If a comment was posted at 15:00 or at 21:00 ... I don't care. If it was a
>> Monday or a Tuesday ... I don't care. I believe I'd rather stick a fork in
>> my eye, than ask
Greg Stein wrote:
> Could I offer an opinion: the time stamps DO NOT MATTER.
>
> If a comment was posted at 15:00 or at 21:00 ... I don't care. If it was a
> Monday or a Tuesday ... I don't care. I believe I'd rather stick a fork in
> my eye, than ask somebody to spend even 5 minutes on timestamps.
25 matches
Mail list logo
