On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
>- delete should remove working items
>
>- notifications
>
>- switch instead of update
>
>- finite depth update conflict
>
>- tests (may need notifications)
I've been working on some test stuff.
I'll send an email shortly
"C. Michael Pilato" writes:
> Is there a chunk of this work that can be easily subcontracted out to
> another of us devs? Tests are probably the obvious option, assuming that
> there lives someplace public a thorough enough design doc from which to work
> when coding test expectations.
The high
On 01/02/2013 01:07 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
> Things that need more work:
>
> - tests.
>
> - handling deleting files/dirs from the working files, at present they
> are left unversioned.
>
> - handle an update that makes no text/property/tree changes in the
> move source, probably
> -Original Message-
> From: MARTIN PHILIP [mailto:codematt...@ntlworld.com] On Behalf Of
> Philip Martin
> Sent: vrijdag 4 januari 2013 16:07
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: 'Julian Foad'; Michael Pilato; 'Stefan Sperling'; 'Ben Reser';
'
"Bert Huijben" writes:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: MARTIN PHILIP [mailto:codematt...@ntlworld.com] On Behalf Of
>>
>> - handle an update that makes no text/property/tree changes in the
>> move source, probably by creating a tree-conflict during the
>> post-drive revision bum
> -Original Message-
> From: MARTIN PHILIP [mailto:codematt...@ntlworld.com] On Behalf Of
> Philip Martin
> Sent: woensdag 2 januari 2013 19:07
> To: Julian Foad
> Cc: C. Michael Pilato; Stefan Sperling; Ben Reser; Subversion Development
> Subject: Re: 1.8 Progre
Philip Martin writes:
> I still think we may get something working by the end of the year. The
> simple cases will work and should be useful. The more complex cases
> should also work to some extent, but it's possible that some subsequent
> tree-conflicts that should be detected while resolving
On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Paul Burba wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 06:00:52PM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
>>> These six XFailing upate tests are all part of this effort correct?
>>>
>>> 61XFAIL update locally moved dir with leaf
Julian Foad writes:
> Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:52:15PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> [...]
>>> OWNERSHIP: Given Philip's comment, I believe it is reasonable to
>>> deem him the owner of this body of work, or at least co-owner with
>>> a possibly-time-constra
Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:52:15PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
[...]
>> OWNERSHIP: Given Philip's comment, I believe it is reasonable to
>> deem him the owner of this body of work, or at least co-owner with
>> a possibly-time-constrained Stefan. But perhaps all t
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 04:52:15PM -0500, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> I also seem to recall Stefan also saying something about not having time to
> work on this stuff for the remainder of 2012, but I can't find a reference
> for that at the moment, so perhaps I just misremembered.
I said so on IRC.
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>
> > 2) Ev2. The notes say this is believed to be in a releasable state? Is
> > there any work needed to verify this? Do we need to remove the use of
> Ev2
> > in any place to avoid releasing with compatibility shims in use? Are we
> > c
On 11/30/2012 01:24 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 11/30/2012 01:18 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 8:59 PM, C. Michael Pilato
>> wrote:
>>> I'm adding send-all support to ra_serf right now, but will leave it #if'd
>>> out until we decide in what scenarios we wish to use it.
On 11/30/2012 01:18 PM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 8:59 PM, C. Michael Pilato
> wrote:
>> I'm adding send-all support to ra_serf right now, but will leave it #if'd
>> out until we decide in what scenarios we wish to use it.
>>
> Wow! That's great! Are you going to add it to exis
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 8:59 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 11/30/2012 09:44 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:52 AM, C. Michael Pilato
>> wrote:
>>> [I'm going to try to summarize the body of responses generated from this
>>> original query -- a conversational reset, if you
On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 4:52 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> [I'm going to try to summarize the body of responses generated from this
> original query -- a conversational reset, if you will -- so as to keep this
> line of inquiry moving toward closure.]
>
>> 3) libsvn_ra_serf stabilization. I kno
On 11/30/2012 09:44 AM, Ivan Zhakov wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:52 AM, C. Michael Pilato
> wrote:
>> [I'm going to try to summarize the body of responses generated from this
>> original query -- a conversational reset, if you will -- so as to keep this
>> line of inquiry moving toward clos
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 1:52 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> [I'm going to try to summarize the body of responses generated from this
> original query -- a conversational reset, if you will -- so as to keep this
> line of inquiry moving toward closure.]
>
[..]
>
>> 3) libsvn_ra_serf stabilization.
On 30.11.2012 02:15, Gavin Baumanis wrote:
> [...]
>>> 3) libsvn_ra_serf stabilization. I know there have been a couple
>>> concerns that Philip has raised (EAGAIN and the random failures).
>> Philip and Ivan both seem keen on reinstating ra_neon.
> [GB: ] Hi Everyone,
> I realise I am non-commit
[...]
> > 3) libsvn_ra_serf stabilization. I know there have been a couple
> > concerns that Philip has raised (EAGAIN and the random failures).
>
> Philip and Ivan both seem keen on reinstating ra_neon.
[GB: ] Hi Everyone,
I realise I am non-committer to SVN - but am a Software Developer none
[I'm going to try to summarize the body of responses generated from this
original query -- a conversational reset, if you will -- so as to keep this
line of inquiry moving toward closure.]
On 11/01/2012 02:42 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> Looking at our roadmap we have the following things still in progr
On Sat, Nov 3, 2012 at 9:33 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 06:00:52PM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
>> These six XFailing upate tests are all part of this effort correct?
>>
>> 61XFAIL update locally moved dir with leaf del
>> 62XFAIL update locally moved dir with edited
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 06:00:52PM -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
> These six XFailing upate tests are all part of this effort correct?
>
> 61XFAIL update locally moved dir with leaf del
> 62XFAIL update locally moved dir with edited leaf del
> 63XFAIL update locally moved dir with incomi
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
>...
> 3) libsvn_ra_serf stabilization. I know there have been a couple concerns
> that Philip has raised (EAGAIN and the random failures). Plus there are
> several issues here (not all of the issues here are serf issues):
> http://subversion.tigr
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Philip Martin
wrote:
> Ben Reser writes:
>
>> 1) local moves/renames. Based on the conversation I had on IRC this seems
>> to be not done yet due to issues found in the original plan. stsp says
>> that if it can't be done before we want to otherwise release 1.8
Ben Reser writes:
> 1) local moves/renames. Based on the conversation I had on IRC this seems
> to be not done yet due to issues found in the original plan. stsp says
> that if it can't be done before we want to otherwise release 1.8 he'd like
> to pull the move code entirely. So the question
On Fri, Nov 02, 2012 at 02:59:10AM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> I went ahead and disabled auto-upgrades in r1404856.
This caused some test fallout which should be mostly fixed now.
The main issue was that I temporarily broke most of the tests
when run within a 1.7 WC.
The only remaining issue
On Thu, Nov 01, 2012 at 03:11:57PM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 11/01/2012 02:42 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> > Also at the risk of opening a can of worms we need to decide on the wc
> > upgrade issue? I can say that the impression I got from Subversion Live was
> > that a lot of people use mult
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 3:11 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 11/01/2012 02:42 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
>> 2) Ev2. The notes say this is believed to be in a releasable state? Is
>> there any work needed to verify this? Do we need to remove the use of Ev2
>> in any place to avoid releasing with comp
On 11/01/2012 02:42 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> 2) Ev2. The notes say this is believed to be in a releasable state? Is
> there any work needed to verify this? Do we need to remove the use of Ev2
> in any place to avoid releasing with compatibility shims in use? Are we
> comfortable that the API is co
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> I am not convinced the API is all finalized. Are there reasons why we
> need/want to release the API definition into the public name space right now?
> If not, I would suggest we move it into the private namespace for now, and
> then make
On Thu, Nov 1, 2012 at 2:42 PM, Ben Reser wrote:
> Looking at our roadmap we have the following things still in progress:
>
> 1) local moves/renames. Based on the conversation I had on IRC this seems
> to be not done yet due to issues found in the original plan. stsp says that
> if it can't be d
Ben Reser wrote:
2) Ev2. The notes say this is believed to be in a releasable state? Is there
any work needed to verify this? Do we need to remove the use of Ev2 in any
place to avoid releasing with compatibility shims in use? Are we comfortable
that the API is complete?
I am not convinced
33 matches
Mail list logo
