Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> If we include the svnrdump change (do we have an explicit use-case for
> doing 'bump' from the client side?), we should also document a way for
> a pre-commit hook¹ to reject 'svnmucc bump' commits.
We don't have a good use case for 'bump' from the client side in general. I
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 08:41:44 +:
> Julian Foad wrote on Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 08:30:10 +0100:
> > Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >
> > > Konstantin Kolinko wrote on Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 03:40:51 +0400:
> > >> My thought:
> > >>
> > >> svnadmin bump -m "message" REPOS_PATH
> >
Julian Foad wrote on Mon, Oct 06, 2014 at 08:30:10 +0100:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>
> > Konstantin Kolinko wrote on Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 03:40:51 +0400:
> >> My thought:
> >>
> >> svnadmin bump -m "message" REPOS_PATH
> >> svnrdump bump -m "message" URL
> >>
> >> The command creates 1 empty r
Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Konstantin Kolinko wrote on Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 03:40:51 +0400:
>> My thought:
>>
>> svnadmin bump -m "message" REPOS_PATH
>> svnrdump bump -m "message" URL
>>
>> The command creates 1 empty revision and thus bumps the repository
>> revision number. It can be repeate
Konstantin Kolinko wrote on Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 03:40:51 +0400:
> 2014-10-02 2:59 GMT+04:00 Daniel Shahaf :
> > Julian Foad wrote on Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:52:42 +0100:
> >> Daniel Shahaf wrote in the thread "No no-op changes":
> >> > Should we prov
2014-10-02 2:59 GMT+04:00 Daniel Shahaf :
> Julian Foad wrote on Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:52:42 +0100:
>> Daniel Shahaf wrote in the thread "No no-op changes":
>> > Should we provide an "official" way to create an empty revision? That
>> > i
Daniel Shahaf wrote on Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 22:59:53 +:
> I don't see what API-consumer-level purpose having the same svn:date
> would serve; it seems to me it would suffice to guarantee
>
> r100 < r101 ≤ r102 ≤ r103 ≤ r104 ≤ r105 < r106
>
> (where "x < y" ⇔ "svn:date value of y is yo
Julian Foad wrote on Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:52:42 +0100:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote in the thread "No no-op changes":
> > Should we provide an "official" way to create an empty revision? That
> > is, a revision whose changed-paths list is empty?
> >
> >
ide an "official" way to create an empty revision? That
>> is, a revision whose changed-paths list is empty?
>>
>> Use-cases:
>>
>> 1. Suppose last backup is r100 and revisions r101:r105 were lost; then
>> after restoring the backup, the admin
Daniel Shahaf wrote in the thread "No no-op changes":
> Should we provide an "official" way to create an empty revision? That
> is, a revision whose changed-paths list is empty?
>
> Use-cases:
>
> 1. Suppose last backup is r100 and revisions r101:r105
10 matches
Mail list logo