Re: [PATCH] Fix for access violation in svn_fs__path_valid()

2016-02-06 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Stefan wrote on Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 00:34:32 +0100: > +++ fs-loader.c (working copy) > @@ -461,7 +461,8 @@ >if (! svn_utf__cstring_is_valid(path)) > { >return svn_error_createf(SVN_ERR_FS_PATH_SYNTAX, NULL, > - _("Path '%s' is not in UTF-8"), pa

Re: Italian translation update

2016-02-06 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Giorgio, Federico — you are listed in COMMITTERS as Italian translators; if you have time, would you be able to review/apply Vincenzo's patch? Thanks! Vincenzo Reale wrote on Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 14:37:48 +0100: > Attached you'll find the command output. > > Regards, > Vincenzo > > In data gio

Re: [RFE] Make 'svn patch' read from STDIN

2016-02-06 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Stefan Sperling wrote on Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 10:51:39 +0100: > On Sun, Jan 31, 2016 at 11:48:26AM +0100, Andreas Scherer wrote: > > I suggest to extend 'svn patch' so that it supports usage in a pipe like > > > > gzip -dc patch-0042.gz | svn patch -P patch-0042 - > > > > This would permit us

Re: svn commit: r1727621 - in /subversion/trunk/subversion: svn/svn.c svnadmin/svnadmin.c svnbench/svnbench.c svnfsfs/svnfsfs.c svnlook/svnlook.c svnrdump/svnrdump.c svnsync/svnsync.c

2016-02-06 Thread Daniel Shahaf
Philip Martin wrote on Mon, Feb 01, 2016 at 11:20:04 +: > Philip Martin writes: > > > That change is broken for two reasons: > > > > - the same handler is used for all those signals but we always exit via > >SIGINT > > > > - except apr_signal does not return APR_SUCCESS so we never exit

Re: Merging parallel-put to /trunk

2016-02-06 Thread Greg Stein
On Fri, Feb 5, 2016 at 3:27 AM, Evgeny Kotkov wrote: >... > (1) Why do we start with adding a quite complex FS feature, given that we > don't know what kind of problems are associated with implementing this > in ra_serf? > Please do not deny a new feature, on the *supposition* that pr

Re: Making FS and repos layer log API streamy

2016-02-06 Thread Greg Stein
On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 6:36 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote: >... > Also I think we should not use callbacks to deliver data from the FS > layer. Currently FS API is passive and I think it should remain the > same: FS API users may invoke FS function from callback and this will > require FS implementation