On 15 January 2016 at 09:26, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Evgeny Kotkov wrote on Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 18:40:11 +0300:
>> Not quite sure on how do we continue from here.
>
> Well, it isn't consensus, but there's an old fallback we can use:
> pick an agreed-upon third party and let him decide.
>
> So let'
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 04:48:28PM -, s...@apache.org wrote:
> Author: stsp
> Date: Fri Jan 15 16:48:27 2016
> New Revision: 1724855
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1724855&view=rev
> Log:
> * subversion/libsvn_wc/conflicts.c
> (svn_wc_create_conflict_result): Initialise 'merged_va
On 13.01.2016 15:33, Evgeny Kotkov wrote:
Stefan Fuhrmann writes:
If I replace apr_palloc() with malloc() / free() and patch mod_dav to avoid
creating the propdb->p subpools, I still see inadequate memory consumption.
The environment is close to the one reported by the user, and preparing a
4.5
On 7 January 2016 at 10:34, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On 6 January 2016 at 08:14, Greg Stein wrote:
>> 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 r
4 matches
Mail list logo
