Daniel Shahaf wrote in thread "Subversion 1.10 RC1?" on 2017-11-23:
I don't think saying "This command is not forwards compatible" in the help text
will prevent users from relying on it being forwards compatible; which, in
turn, will discourage us, come 1.11, to make incompatible changes to this
Julian Foad wrote:
Philip Martin wrote:
Julian Foad writes:
AFAIK we still need to arrange adequate test coverage for it.
Test coverage is provided by the other nominations in STATUS. Apply
r1827105, r1827114 and run "make davautocheck BLOCK_READ=1" and see lots
of tests FAIL. Apply the 47
Philip Martin wrote:
Julian Foad writes:
AFAIK we still need to arrange adequate test coverage for it.
Test coverage is provided by the other nominations in STATUS. Apply
r1827105, r1827114 and run "make davautocheck BLOCK_READ=1" and see lots
of tests FAIL. Apply the 4725 fix and they PASS
Julian Foad writes:
> AFAIK we still need to arrange adequate test coverage for it.
Test coverage is provided by the other nominations in STATUS. Apply
r1827105, r1827114 and run "make davautocheck BLOCK_READ=1" and see lots
of tests FAIL. Apply the 4725 fix and they PASS.
> * revprop cachi
Julian Foad wrote:
I plan to roll 1.10.0-rc2 this week so we can release it by next
Wednesday (3 weeks from RC1).
Update: That plan is delayed by
"svnadmin load error fsfs cache"
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SVN-4725
"FSFS cache reading one svndiff window beyond end"
https://i
Github user pono closed the pull request at:
https://github.com/apache/subversion/pull/5
---
Philip Martin writes:
> It is even more pointless than that. Looking at the code in
> svn_fs_fs__initialize_caches() I see that revprop caching is now enabled
> unconditionally for all FSFS access.
>
> The config setting SVN_FS_CONFIG_FSFS_CACHE_REVPROPS is public in
> svn_fs.h so it has to rema
Philip Martin writes:
> It seems wrong for our checksum code to allow the wrong length, but
> preventing dump when the data could otherwise be extracted is also
> wrong. Perhaps we should simply allow the checksum code to read any
> length when rb->len is zero? That doesn't seem right. Perhaps
8 matches
Mail list logo