Personally, I'd be more interested in the effects on the network and its
caching ability. Do we really need to save CPU/IO on the server? Today's
servers seem more than capable, and are there really svn servers out in the
wild getting so crushed, that this is important? It seems that as long as
pro
On 1/5/2016 15:56, Julian Foad wrote:
Ping!... Stefan H or Stefan F, is there anything further to report on
this issue?
I'll have to retest the current trunk against the test case to check out
the current state. Quite busy atm though, so donno if I can squeeze it
in this week. Will do though, u
Daniel Shahaf writes:
>> I'm aware of two possible ways of solving the problem:
>>
>> (1) Fix mod_dav, adjust mod_dav_svn accordingly
>>
>> (2) Reimplement PROPFIND in mod_dav_svn
>>
[...]
> Wait a minute. Isn't "we have few active committers" a reason for
> choosing (1) over (2)? I would n
Ping!... Stefan H or Stefan F, is there anything further to report on
this issue?
- Julian
On 25 August 2015, Stefan Hett wrote:
> On 17 August 2015, Stefan Fuhrmann wrote:
>> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015, Stefan Hett wrote:
>>> I came across a case where svn-normalizer did remove mergeinfo for a
>>> br
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 12:42:38PM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: james...@apache.org [mailto:james...@apache.org]
> > Sent: dinsdag 5 januari 2016 05:59
> > To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
> > Subject: svn commit: r1723003 - /subversion/branches/1.9.x/S
> -Original Message-
> From: james...@apache.org [mailto:james...@apache.org]
> Sent: dinsdag 5 januari 2016 05:59
> To: comm...@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: svn commit: r1723003 - /subversion/branches/1.9.x/STATUS
>
> Author: jamessan
> Date: Tue Jan 5 04:58:36 2016
> New Revision:
6 matches
Mail list logo