Nathan Hartman wrote on Sun, 31 May 2020 20:38 -0400:
> As 1.{9,11,12,13}.x are EOL, are the svn-backport-conflicts buildbots
> for those release lines still needed?
Well, in theory someone could still nominate patches to those branches,
but I see no good reason to continue to run thos
As 1.{9,11,12,13}.x are EOL, are the svn-backport-conflicts buildbots
for those release lines still needed?
Thanks,
Nathan
On 27.08.2018 14:00, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote on Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:44 +0200:
>> On 24.08.2018 13:55, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> Brane, this one's yours:
>>>
>>> https://ci.apache.org/buildslaves/svn-x64-macosx-dgvrs
>>>
>>> The new tests for #4077 are failing on at least this build
Branko Čibej wrote on Mon, 27 Aug 2018 13:44 +0200:
> On 24.08.2018 13:55, Julian Foad wrote:
> > Brane, this one's yours:
> >
> > https://ci.apache.org/buildslaves/svn-x64-macosx-dgvrs
> >
> > The new tests for #4077 are failing on at least this buildbot-slave.
> >
> > "Can't read rep-cache sc
On 24.08.2018 13:55, Julian Foad wrote:
> Brane, this one's yours:
>
> https://ci.apache.org/buildslaves/svn-x64-macosx-dgvrs
>
> The new tests for #4077 are failing on at least this buildbot-slave.
>
> "Can't read rep-cache schema 2 using old Python-SQLite version (3,
> 7, 13) < (3,8,2)"
>
> (
Brane, this one's yours:
https://ci.apache.org/buildslaves/svn-x64-macosx-dgvrs
The new tests for #4077 are failing on at least this buildbot-slave.
"Can't read rep-cache schema 2 using old Python-SQLite version (3, 7,
13) < (3,8,2)"
(danielsh says: the magic number 3.8.2 is the minimum
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:51 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> On 2/17/14, 12:38 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> > I know that on the svn-x64-ubuntu-gcc slave (currently residing in my
> > basement), the scripts are updated manually. I may even have local
> edits that
> > aren't yet in the repository.
>
> I s
On 2/17/14, 12:38 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> I know that on the svn-x64-ubuntu-gcc slave (currently residing in my
> basement), the scripts are updated manually. I may even have local edits that
> aren't yet in the repository.
I suspected as much. Can I possibly get access to this machine to wo
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 6:49 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> We need our buildbots to work for branches. I propose the following
> changes,
> in decreasing order of priority.
>
> 1) If something like bindings is broken on a build bot for branches then
> disable the test on that bu
On 2/16/14, 1:22 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 16.02.2014 10:10, Markus Schaber wrote:
>> Hi, Ben,
>>
>> Von: Ben Reser [b...@reser.org]
>>
>>> 1) If something like bindings is broken on a build bot for branches then
>>> disable the test on that buildbot. It is far better to disable bindings
>>> t
On 16.02.2014 10:10, Markus Schaber wrote:
> Hi, Ben,
>
> Von: Ben Reser [b...@reser.org]
>
>> 1) If something like bindings is broken on a build bot for branches then
>> disable the test on that buildbot. It is far better to disable bindings
>> tests
>> than it is to continue to allow the build
Hi, Ben,
Von: Ben Reser [b...@reser.org]
> 1) If something like bindings is broken on a build bot for branches then
> disable the test on that buildbot. It is far better to disable bindings tests
> than it is to continue to allow the build bot to fail and thus encourage us to
> ignore the build
We need our buildbots to work for branches. I propose the following changes,
in decreasing order of priority.
1) If something like bindings is broken on a build bot for branches then
disable the test on that buildbot. It is far better to disable bindings tests
than it is to continue to allow
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 3:09 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> Hello guys;
>
> Sorry to contact you about something somewhat off-topic but perhaps
> someone here can give me details (in private is OK) on how the Coverity
> scans are generated?
>
> On another Apache project we want to use coverity but inf
Hello guys;
Sorry to contact you about something somewhat off-topic but perhaps
someone here can give me details (in private is OK) on how the Coverity
scans are generated?
On another Apache project we want to use coverity but infra@ is not
aware about anything on their side that is required to
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 2:00 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
>
>
> I have added an XFail core regression test to svnlook_tests.py. When
> that is fixed we should be able to revert r1293375 and have the Ruby
> tests PASS. We could revert r1293375 now if the Ruby tests have a
> mechanism to mark tests X
Joe Swatosh writes:
> What is the best way to proceed? Revert the Hyrum's commit of my patch
> that hid the change in behavior? Can you (or someone else) write a
> test that makes direct assertions about this behavior, so that the
> only test of it isn't hidden away in the Ruby bindings tests? An
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Joe Swatosh writes:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Philip Martin
>> wrote:
>>> Joe Swatosh writes:
>>>
>>> I don't understand why prop_mod is no longer being set.
>>
>> Because replay is no longer setting it?
>
> Does that mean the
Philip Martin writes:
> Philip Martin writes:
>
>> I'm not aware of a deliberate change to core Subversion behaviour.
>> Property deletes should still be reported as property mods by the
>> Subversion libraries.
>
> Ah! There is a non-Ruby bug. Repository with property delete:
>
> svnadmin crea
Philip Martin writes:
> I'm not aware of a deliberate change to core Subversion behaviour.
> Property deletes should still be reported as property mods by the
> Subversion libraries.
Ah! There is a non-Ruby bug. Repository with property delete:
svnadmin create repo
svn -mm import repo/format f
Joe Swatosh writes:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Philip Martin
> wrote:
>> Joe Swatosh writes:
>>
>> I don't understand why prop_mod is no longer being set.
>
> Because replay is no longer setting it?
Does that mean the core Subversion libraries have changed? I don't do
Ruby but it prop
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 3:33 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Joe Swatosh writes:
>
>> Before r1293375, the node that represented 'diff1.txt' in this walk
>> had the "prop_mod" member set true. After r1293375, the "prop_mod"
>> member for this node is false. Since the implementation of
>> Svn::Info#get
Joe Swatosh writes:
> Before r1293375, the node that represented 'diff1.txt' in this walk
> had the "prop_mod" member set true. After r1293375, the "prop_mod"
> member for this node is false. Since the implementation of
> Svn::Info#get_diff_recurse checks "prop_mod" member before attempting
> to
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 3:42 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Joe Swatosh writes:
>
>> I guess that deleting a property isn't considered a prop_mod on the
>> node anymore?
>
> The property delete is still reported as a property change by the
> Subversion core and still gets as far as ChangedEditor.chan
Joe Swatosh writes:
> I guess that deleting a property isn't considered a prop_mod on the
> node anymore?
The property delete is still reported as a property change by the
Subversion core and still gets as far as ChangedEditor.change_file_prop
in the Ruby bindings, see my first email in this thr
s needed?
> >>>
> >>> -Hyrum
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yup that is exactly what I'm implying. You may recall during wc-ng
> >> development that there were many failing Ruby bindings tests. There
> >> were three broad catego
ay recall during wc-ng
>> development that there were many failing Ruby bindings tests. There
>> were three broad categories of failures: binding or binding test
>> errors, unintentional changes to how the wc library worked, and tests
>> of wc implementation among the bin
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Hyrum K Wright
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> On Fri, M
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 6:18 AM, Hyrum K Wright
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
>>
>>
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Philip Martin
>>> wrote:
>>>> The Ruby bindings are failin
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 10:39 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Philip Martin
>> wrote:
>>> The Ruby bindings are failing during check-swig-rb on the buildbots for
>>> trunk. This
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 9:46 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Philip Martin
> wrote:
>> The Ruby bindings are failing during check-swig-rb on the buildbots for
>> trunk. This has been happening since r1293375, which changed the way
>> property d
On Fri, Mar 9, 2012 at 2:44 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> The Ruby bindings are failing during check-swig-rb on the buildbots for
> trunk. This has been happening since r1293375, which changed the way
> property diffs are reported during replay. As far as I can tell this is
> a prob
The Ruby bindings are failing during check-swig-rb on the buildbots for
trunk. This has been happening since r1293375, which changed the way
property diffs are reported during replay. As far as I can tell this is
a problem with the bindings rather than the core Subversion code.
The test deletes
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Philip Martin
>> wrote:
>>> Johan Corveleyn writes:
>>>
Apparently I broke the builds on the builtbots yesterday evening,
after integrating
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Hyrum K Wright wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Philip Martin
> wrote:
>> Johan Corveleyn writes:
>>
>>> Apparently I broke the builds on the builtbots yesterday evening,
>>> after integrating the diff-optimizations-bytes branch. Sorry for that.
>>>
>>> T
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Johan Corveleyn writes:
>
>> Apparently I broke the builds on the builtbots yesterday evening,
>> after integrating the diff-optimizations-bytes branch. Sorry for that.
>>
>> There were two problems:
>> - Failing diff-diff3-test.exe (actuall
Johan Corveleyn writes:
> Apparently I broke the builds on the builtbots yesterday evening,
> after integrating the diff-optimizations-bytes branch. Sorry for that.
>
> There were two problems:
> - Failing diff-diff3-test.exe (actually hanging). This was rectified
> in r1067839.
>
> - Failing (py
Apparently I broke the builds on the builtbots yesterday evening,
after integrating the diff-optimizations-bytes branch. Sorry for that.
There were two problems:
- Failing diff-diff3-test.exe (actually hanging). This was rectified
in r1067839.
- Failing (python) bindings. I could use some help wi
39 matches
Mail list logo
