If you have a moment, please add my +1. Thanks.
Sent from my Windows Mobile® phone.
-Original Message-
From: Hyrum K. Wright
Sent: Monday, April 12, 2010 4:51 AM
To: Joe Swatosh
Cc: C. Michael Pilato ; Subversion Development
Subject: Re: 1.6.10 up for testing/signing
On Sun, Apr 11
On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 8:27 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> Mike and Hyrum,
>
> On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:11 AM, C. Michael Pilato
> wrote:
> > Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> >>> Thanks for the reminder. Merging the changed suggested here (r876245)
> does
> >>> indeed fix the test failure for me.
> >>
> >>
Mike and Hyrum,
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:11 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>> Thanks for the reminder. Merging the changed suggested here (r876245) does
>>> indeed fix the test failure for me.
>>
>> Joe,
>> I'm happy to +0 this patch, since it fixes the failure for me. I
C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> 1. All the RA layers depend on a helper function
>> svn_mergeinfo__remove_prefix_from_catalog() to convert repos abspaths
>> into paths relative to the session baton. Unfortunately, that function
>> is a touch braindead and doesn'
C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> 1. All the RA layers depend on a helper function
> svn_mergeinfo__remove_prefix_from_catalog() to convert repos abspaths
> into paths relative to the session baton. Unfortunately, that function
> is a touch braindead and doesn't return consistent relpaths at
On Mon, Apr 5, 2010 at 8:11 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>> Thanks for the reminder. Merging the changed suggested here (r876245) does
>>> indeed fix the test failure for me.
>>
>> Joe,
>> I'm happy to +0 this patch, since it fixes the failure for me. I've no idea
>> wh
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 08:51:07AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > Should we delay the #3242 fix until 1.6.12 and release 1.6.11 ASAP?
> > That would give us plenty of time to do the #3242 backport properly,
> > and would give users access to the other 1.6.11 backport i
On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 7:51 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > Should we delay the #3242 fix until 1.6.12 and release 1.6.11 ASAP?
> > That would give us plenty of time to do the #3242 backport properly,
> > and would give users access to the other 1.6.11 backport items.
>
>
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> Should we delay the #3242 fix until 1.6.12 and release 1.6.11 ASAP?
> That would give us plenty of time to do the #3242 backport properly,
> and would give users access to the other 1.6.11 backport items.
I was actually thinking the same thing, but if 1.6.12 is going to be
On Mon, Apr 05, 2010 at 10:30:06PM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Paul Burba wrote:
> > P.S. There are clearly some opportunities in this code to be more
> > conservative in requesting access to the repos root. If
> > REPOS_REL_PATH has explicit mergeinfo we only need access to that
> > path.
Paul Burba wrote:
> P.S. There are clearly some opportunities in this code to be more
> conservative in requesting access to the repos root. If
> REPOS_REL_PATH has explicit mergeinfo we only need access to that
> path. Only if it has none and we need to find inherited mergeinfo do
> we need acce
On Fri, Apr 2, 2010 at 5:22 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <
>> hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> 1.6.10 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r929659:
>>>
>>> http://orac.ece.utexas.
Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> Thanks for the reminder. Merging the changed suggested here (r876245) does
>> indeed fix the test failure for me.
>
> Joe,
> I'm happy to +0 this patch, since it fixes the failure for me. I've no idea
> what it's doing under the hood, though, so I'd feel more comfortabl
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Hyrum K. Wright <
hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <
>> > hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.ed
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <
> hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>> 1.6.10 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r929659:
>>
>> http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.10/
>>
>> Download, test, sign and send your
C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> OVER NEON:
>
> PASS: merge_tests.py 45: target inherits mergeinfo from nearest ancestor
> PASS: merge_tests.py 77: subtrees added after start of merge range are ok
> PASS: merge_tests.py 79: merge --reintegrate with renamed file on branch
> PASS: merge_tests.py 124:
Paul Burba wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
>>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Julian Foad
>>> wrote:
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 11:43 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:01 -0600, Hyrum K. Wrig
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 6:07 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Philip Martin
> wrote:
>> Philip Martin writes:
>>
>>> Paul Burba writes:
>>>
> My bad, I didn't pass --url! I was still half asleep when I did that.
> The tests pass for me over ra_neon, but all excep
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:50 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Philip Martin writes:
>
>> Paul Burba writes:
>>
My bad, I didn't pass --url! I was still half asleep when I did that.
The tests pass for me over ra_neon, but all except 77 fail over
ra_serf.
>>>
>>> All 5 corresponding test
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 09:23, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 08:52 -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Julian Foad
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 11:43 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
>> >>> On Wed, 20
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:58 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <
> > hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >
> >> 1.6.10 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r929659:
> >>
> >> http://orac.ec
Philip Martin writes:
> Paul Burba writes:
>
>>> My bad, I didn't pass --url! I was still half asleep when I did that.
>>> The tests pass for me over ra_neon, but all except 77 fail over
>>> ra_serf.
>>
>> All 5 corresponding tests (45, 76, 78, 123, 125 for those playing at
>> home) pass on tr
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:23 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 08:52 -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Julian Foad
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 11:43 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
>> >>> On Wed,
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 08:52 -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Julian Foad
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 11:43 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> >>> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:01 -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> >>> > 1
Paul Burba writes:
>> My bad, I didn't pass --url! I was still half asleep when I did that.
>> The tests pass for me over ra_neon, but all except 77 fail over
>> ra_serf.
>
> All 5 corresponding tests (45, 76, 78, 123, 125 for those playing at
> home) pass on trunk [fsfs | ra_serf]
Agreed. I g
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:52 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 11:43 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:01 -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> 1.6.10 tarba
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 8:08 AM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 11:43 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:01 -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>>> > 1.6.10 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r929659:
>>> >
>>> > ht
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 7:40 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 11:43 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:01 -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> > 1.6.10 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r929659:
>> >
>> > http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.10/
>>
>> For me, mer
Julian Foad writes:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:01 -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> 1.6.10 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r929659:
>>
>> http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.10/
>
> For me, merge_tests.py 45 77 79 124 126 all fail, on serf/fsfs. Here's
> the command and the end of the
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 11:43 +0100, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:01 -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> > 1.6.10 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r929659:
> >
> > http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.10/
>
> For me, merge_tests.py 45 77 79 124 126 all fail, on serf/fsfs.
If I
On Thu, 2010-04-01 at 11:17 +0100, Philip Martin wrote:
> Julian Foad writes:
>
> > On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:01 -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> >> 1.6.10 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r929659:
> >>
> >> http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.10/
> >
> > For me, the new test 'svnadmin_te
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:01 -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> 1.6.10 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r929659:
>
> http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.10/
For me, merge_tests.py 45 77 79 124 126 all fail, on serf/fsfs. Here's
the command and the end of the 'tests.log' output for test 45:
Julian Foad writes:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:01 -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
>> 1.6.10 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r929659:
>>
>> http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.10/
>
> For me, the new test 'svnadmin_tests.py 19' fails on BDB (but passes on
> FSFS). Is this known?
That te
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:01 -0600, Hyrum K. Wright wrote:
> 1.6.10 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r929659:
>
> http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.10/
For me, the new test 'svnadmin_tests.py 19' fails on BDB (but passes on
FSFS). Is this known?
[[[
$ subversion/tests/cmdline/svnadmi
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Joe Swatosh wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <
>> hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> 1.6.10 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r929659:
>>>
>>> http://orac.ece.utexa
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:29 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <
> hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>> 1.6.10 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r929659:
>>
>> http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.10/
>>
>> Download, test, sign and send your
On Windows, Basic_tests 37 seems to be failing as well.
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 4:29 PM, Hyrum K. Wright
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <
> hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
>
>> 1.6.10 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r929659:
>>
>> http://orac.ece.utexas.ed
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:01 PM, Hyrum K. Wright <
hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote:
> 1.6.10 tarballs are up, the magic revision is r929659:
>
> http://orac.ece.utexas.edu/pub/svn/1.6.10/
>
> Download, test, sign and send your sigs back to me. (And don't even think
> about declaring this as "
38 matches
Mail list logo
