[Paul Burba]
> Once this is backported I think we are ready for 1.6.8. Anybody
> aware of any open issues preventing that?
Well, I still have a couple of ruby test failures on Debian
architectures I don't have easy access to, failures I can't reproduce
(and neither can anyone else I know). If I
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 8:51 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 06:33:01PM -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> On Jan 5, 2010, at 6:22 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
>> > Assuming my fix looks right, how do we do this? Create a "backport"
>> > branch from 1.6.x, make the change there, and no
On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 3:54 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> Joe Swatosh wrote:
>> Even though this isn't happening on trunk, it occurs to be to wonder
>> if these tests shouldn't be included on trunk to prevent possible
>> segfaults in the future?
>
> Yes, that would be sensible.
Done r896522.
Paul
On Tue, Jan 05, 2010 at 06:33:01PM -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> On Jan 5, 2010, at 6:22 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> > Assuming my fix looks right, how do we do this? Create a "backport"
> > branch from 1.6.x, make the change there, and nominate it for backport
> > yes?
>
> I haven't looked at the
Joe Swatosh wrote:
> Even though this isn't happening on trunk, it occurs to be to wonder
> if these tests shouldn't be included on trunk to prevent possible
> segfaults in the future?
Yes, that would be sensible.
- Julian
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
>>> On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:35:23AM -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>
On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:35:23AM -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
Please be sure to test the bindings.
>>>
>>> Also, a ruby
On Jan 5, 2010, at 6:22 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
>> On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:35:23AM -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
Please be sure to test the bindings.
>>>
>>> Also, a ruby b
On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:49 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:35:23AM -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>> Please be sure to test the bindings.
>>
>> Also, a ruby bindings test segfaults.
>>
>> I've found this in an Open
On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Peter Samuelson wrote:
>
> [Branko Cibej]
>> I thought we were supposed to be more tolerant of mis-fomatted
>> mergeinfo, not suddenly change the mergeinfo format? What am I missing?
>
> I thought it was both - parse incorrect mergeinfo, but when writing it
> out,
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 10:35 AM, Hyrum K. Wright
wrote:
> A little late, but never never, here's the promised tarballs for Subversion
> 1.6.7. The magic
> revision is r893529, and you can find the tarballs here:
>
> http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.7/
>
> Please be sure to test the bindin
On Dec 23 2009, 4:35 pm, "Hyrum K. Wright"
wrote:
> A little late, but never never, here's the promised tarballs for Subversion
> 1.6.7. The magic revision is r893529, and you can find the tarballs here:
>
> http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.7/
>
for preparing the http://opencsw.org upgrad
[Branko Cibej]
> I thought we were supposed to be more tolerant of mis-fomatted
> mergeinfo, not suddenly change the mergeinfo format? What am I missing?
I thought it was both - parse incorrect mergeinfo, but when writing it
out, fix it. I think that's why the test expectations had to be
changed
On Thu, 2009-12-24 at 15:46 +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
> I have seen failures like these when I accidentally built svn without
> any support for iconv.
>
> Bhuvaneswaran, are you linking to either GNU libiconv or APR-iconv?
> Could it be that Solaris' native iconv implementation (if there is
On Thu, 2009-12-24 at 10:40 +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
>
> All these errors are related to converting characters to and from
> UTF8. It could be that these characters can't be represented in the
> system locale or that the iconv library has limited support for
> converting from the encoding used b
On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:35:23AM -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> Please be sure to test the bindings.
>
> Also, a ruby bindings test segfaults.
>
> I've found this in an OpenBSD ports build, hence no debug symbols
> in this trace. I can
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:35:23AM -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> Please be sure to test the bindings.
Also, a ruby bindings test segfaults.
I've found this in an OpenBSD ports build, hence no debug symbols
in this trace. I can rebuild it with debug symbols if required.
Trace:
(gdb) bt
#0 0x0
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:35:23AM -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>
>> A little late, but never never, here's the promised tarballs for Subversion
>> 1.6.7. The magic revision is r893529, and you can find the tarballs here:
>>
>> http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.7
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:35:23AM -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> A little late, but never never, here's the promised tarballs for Subversion
> 1.6.7. The magic revision is r893529, and you can find the tarballs here:
>
> http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.7/
>
> Please be sure to test the
On Wed, Dec 23, 2009 at 09:35:23AM -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> A little late, but never never, here's the promised tarballs for Subversion
> 1.6.7. The magic revision is r893529, and you can find the tarballs here:
>
> http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.7/
Not sure if we care, but hacki
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> A little late, but never never, here's the promised tarballs for Subversion
> 1.6.7. The magic revision is r893529, and you can find the tarballs here:
>
> http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.7/
Summary:
+1 to release
On Thu, Dec 24, 2009 at 10:40:51AM +0100, Bert Huijben wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bhuvaneswaran A [mailto:bhu...@collab.net]
> > Sent: donderdag 24 december 2009 5:15
> > To: Hyrum K. Wright
> > Cc: Subversion Development
> > Subje
> -Original Message-
> From: rupert.thurner [mailto:rupert.thur...@gmail.com]
> Sent: donderdag 24 december 2009 11:37
> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: 1.6.7 up for signing/testing
>
> On Dec 24, 10:40 am, "Bert Huijben" wrote:
> > &g
On Dec 24, 10:40 am, "Bert Huijben" wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bhuvaneswaran A [mailto:bhu...@collab.net]
> > Sent: donderdag 24 december 2009 5:15
> > To: Hyrum K. Wright
> > Cc: Subversion Development
> > Subject: Re: 1.6.7 up f
> -Original Message-
> From: Bhuvaneswaran A [mailto:bhu...@collab.net]
> Sent: donderdag 24 december 2009 5:15
> To: Hyrum K. Wright
> Cc: Subversion Development
> Subject: Re: 1.6.7 up for signing/testing
>
> On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 09:35 -0600, Hyrum K. Wright
On Wed, 2009-12-23 at 09:35 -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> A little late, but never never, here's the promised tarballs for Subversion
> 1.6.7. The magic revision is r893529, and you can find the tarballs here:
>
> http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.7/
>
> Please be sure to test the bindin
A little late, but never never, here's the promised tarballs for Subversion
1.6.7. The magic revision is r893529, and you can find the tarballs here:
http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.7/
Please be sure to test the bindings.
You know the drill: signatures from full committers back to me, a
27 matches
Mail list logo
