Daniel Shahaf wrote on Thu, 07 Nov 2019 17:15 +00:00:
> +++ subversion/tests/cmdline/info_tests.py(working copy)
> @@ -644,6 +644,10 @@ def info_item_simple(sbox):
> + svntest.actions.run_and_verify_svn(
> +['1\tdir'], [],
> +'info', '--show-item=revision,kind', '--no-newline',
> +
On 08.11.2019 10:48, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Nathan Hartman wrote on Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 00:58:29 -0500:
>> In my mind, listing changelists (and which files are "in" them) should
>> be a documented part of the changelist feature, not something achieved
>> by a non-obvious invocation of 'svn status'
Hi, I updated the patch to restrict supported SWIG version
posted before, <4ea8a16b-f04b-ab8c-8794-60a244294...@poem.co.jp>.
In build system:
* Make symbolic link for *.so files in build tree on the copy-swig-py
target, for the check-swig-py target (for SWIG >= 4.0.0). this symbolic
links are c
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 8:00 AM Julian Foad wrote:
> Nathan Hartman wrote:
> > > Friday% svn st -q
> > > --- Changelist 'foo':
> > > M iota
> > > Friday% vi A/mu
> > > Friday% svn commit -mm --cl foo
> > > Sendingiota
> > > SendingA/mu
> > > # ... "Revert accidental c
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
The intended reading of the example is [...]
I know, but we're not going to get much further by focusing on that example.
I wonder if we should invent some notion of "quiet" changelist, [...]
A quality of being "quiet in the context of svn-status" is not a good
quality
Julian Foad wrote on Fri, 08 Nov 2019 13:00 +00:00:
> Nathan Hartman wrote:
> > > Friday% svn st -q
> > > --- Changelist 'foo':
> > > M iota
> > > Friday% vi A/mu
> > > Friday% svn commit -mm --cl foo
> > > Sending iota
> > > Sending A/mu
> > > # ... "Revert accidental c
Nathan Hartman wrote:
> Friday% svn st -q
> --- Changelist 'foo':
> M iota
> Friday% vi A/mu
> Friday% svn commit -mm --cl foo
> Sending iota
> Sending A/mu
> # ... "Revert accidental commit"
You're right. That would be immensely irritating...
The opposite reading o
On Fri, Nov 8, 2019 at 4:48 AM Daniel Shahaf
wrote:
Nathan Hartman wrote on Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 00:58:29 -0500:
>> Daniel suggested to leave the behavior of 'svn status' as-is, unless
>> 'svn status' is run with both -v and -q.
>
> That's not what I suggested.
I misunderstood... sorry! More belo
Nathan Hartman wrote on Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 01:39:46 -0500:
> Since you wrote "Any other opinions?" I assume you intended to send
> this to the list... (My reply follows below.)
Yes, that's correct. I'd intended to reply offlist but changed my mind partway
through drafting and neglected to chang
Julian Foad wrote on Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 08:13:20 +:
> If I did my search correctly, there is nothing about Python 3 in any of the
> 1.10 through 1.14 release notes. Haven't we got something to say about
> limited support (for build and test?) in some version before 1.14? All I
> could find
Nathan Hartman wrote on Fri, Nov 08, 2019 at 00:58:29 -0500:
> Daniel suggested to leave the behavior of 'svn status' as-is, unless
> 'svn status' is run with both -v and -q.
That's not what I suggested.
I suggested to modify the behaviour if -q is passed, *regardless* of whether -v
is passed or
Nathan Hartman wrote:
Question: Some Python scripts have not been updated for Python 3.x
yet. Should those be listed in the release notes under "Known Issues"?
Should a bug be filed? Or both?
Both: an Issue tracking which ones are known broken or untested, and a
pointer to it in the release no
12 matches
Mail list logo
